Conservative versus repair of medial patellofemoral ligament for the treatment of patients with acute primary patellar dislocations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patellar Dislocation: Workup and Decision-Making

Acute patellar dislocation (PD) is usually a problem of adolescents and young adults. In most cases, it is a sports-related injury. It is the result of an indirect force on the knee joint, which leads to valgus and external rotation of the tibia relative to the femur. PD is unlikely to occur on a knee with normal patellofemoral joint (PFJ) anatomy. Acute PD consists of an acute injury of the ligamentous medial patellar stabilizers in the background of factors predisposing to patellar instability. These factors are classified into three groups. The first group refers to the integrity of the ligamentous medial patellar restraints, particularly, the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL). The second group refers to an abnormal PFJ anatomy, which renders the patella inherently unstable inside the trochlea. The third group refers to the overall axial and torsional profile of the lower limb and to systemic factors, such as ligament laxity and neuromuscular coordination of movement. PD at a younger age is associated with an increased number and severity of patellar instability predisposing factors and lower stress to dislocate the patella. Acute primary PD is usually treated conservatively, while surgical treatment is reserved for recurrent PD. The aim of treatment is to restore the stability and function of the PFJ and to reduce the risk of patellar redislocation. Surgical procedures to treat patellar instability are classified into non-anatomic and anatomic procedures. Non-anatomic procedures are extensor mechanism realignment techniques that aim to center the patella into the trochlear groove. Anatomic procedures aim to restore the PFJ anatomy (ruptured ligaments, osteochondral fractures), which has been severed after the first incident of PD. Anatomic procedures, especially MPFL reconstruction, are more effective in preventing recurrent PD, compared with non-anatomic techniques. Theoretically, all factors that affect PFJ stability should be evaluated and, if possible, addressed. This is practically impossible. Considering that the MPFL ruptures in almost all PDs, MPFL reconstruction is the primary procedure, which is currently selected by most surgeons as a first-line treatment for patients with recurrent PD. Restoration of the axial and torsional alignment of the lower limbs is also increasingly implemented by surgeons. Non-anatomic surgical techniques, such as tibial-tuberosity osteotomy, are used as an adjunct to anatomic procedures. In the presence of multiple PFJ instability factors, acute MPFL reconstruction may be the treatment of choice for acute primary PD as well. Skeletal immaturity of the patient precludes osseous procedures to avoid premature physis closure and subsequent limb deformity. Unfortunately, restoration of the patient's previous activity level or participation in more strenuous sports is questionable and not easy to predict. In the case of competitive athletes, PD may prevent participation in elite levels of sports.

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction is Preferred to Repair or Reefing for First-Time Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical outcome of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, MPFL repair and medial reefing for patients with first-time patellar dislocation.

Methods

Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched up to May 8, 2022. Only articles treating first-time patellar dislocation with MPFL reconstruction, MPFL repair and medial reefing were included in the analysis. Eligible identification, data extraction, quality assessment and statistical analysis were performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome measures were the incidences of postoperatively redislocation and reoperation. The second outcomes were the Kujala functional score and complications (including infection, osteoarthritis, and loss of range of motion).

Results

Twenty-two studies involving 668 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of which, four studies involving 126 patients were in MPFL reconstruction group, ten studies involving 220 patients in MPFL repair group and 9 studies involving 322 patients in medial reefing group. Our results showed that the MPFL reconstruction (1.8%, 95% CI - 0.5 to 4.0%) had a significantly lower rate of postoperative redislocation and reoperation rate than the MPFL repair (15.4%, 95% CI 5.2-25.7%) and medial reefing (18.0%, 95% CI 9.3-26.7%). Besides, no significant differences were found in the Kujala score and complication rate among the three treatments.

Conclusion

The available evidence demonstrated that MPFL reconstruction could achieve significantly lower redislocation rate and reoperation rate than MPFL repair and medial reefing after first-time patella dislocation. Furthermore, there was not enough evidence to reveal that MPFL reconstruction provided better functional outcome compared with MPFL repair and medial reefing. MPFL reconstruction is a preferred surgical treatment for patients with first-time patellar dislocation.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV.

Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating patellar dislocation

BACKGROUND

Patellar (knee cap) dislocation occurs when the patella disengages completely from the trochlear (femoral) groove. It affects up to 42/100,000 people, and is most prevalent in those aged 20 to 30 years old. It is uncertain whether surgical or non-surgical treatment is the best approach. This is important as recurrent dislocation occurs in up to 40% of people who experience a first time (primary) dislocation. This can reduce quality of life and as a result people have to modify their lifestyle. This review is needed to determine whether surgical or non-surgical treatment should be offered to people after patellar dislocation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating people with primary or recurrent patellar dislocation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and trial registries in December 2021. We contacted corresponding authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating primary or recurrent lateral patellar dislocation in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent patellar dislocation, and patient-rated knee and physical function scores. Our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, return to former activities, knee pain during activity or at rest, adverse events, patient-reported satisfaction, patient-reported knee instability symptoms and subsequent requirement for knee surgery. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two quasi-RCTs) of 519 participants with patellar dislocation. The mean ages in the individual studies ranged from 13.0 to 27.2 years. Four studies included children, mainly adolescents, as well as adults; two only recruited children. Study follow-up ranged from one to 14 years. We are unsure of the evidence for all outcomes in this review because we judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low. We downgraded each outcome by three levels. Reasons included imprecision (when fewer than 100 events were reported or the confidence interval (CI) indicated appreciable benefits as well as harms), risk of bias (when studies were at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias), and inconsistency (in the event that pooled analysis included high levels of statistical heterogeneity). We are uncertain whether surgery lowers the risk of recurrent dislocation following primary patellar dislocation compared with non-surgical management at two to nine year follow-up. Based on an illustrative risk of recurrent dislocation in 348 people per 1000 in the non-surgical group, we found that 157 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 209 fewer to 87 fewer) had recurrent dislocation between two and nine years after surgery (8 studies, 438 participants). We are uncertain whether surgery improves patient-rated knee and function scores. Studies measured this outcome using different scales (the Tegner activity scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm, Kujala Patellofemoral Disorders score and Hughston visual analogue scale). The most frequently reported score was the Kujala Patellofemoral Disorders score. This indicated people in the surgical group had a mean score of 5.73 points higher at two to nine year follow-up (95% CI 2.91 lower to 14.37 higher; 7 studies, 401 participants). On this 100-point scale, higher scores indicate better function, and a change score of 10 points is considered to be clinically meaningful; therefore, this CI includes a possible meaningful improvement. We are uncertain whether surgery increases the risk of adverse events. Based on an assumed risk of overall incidence of complications during the first two years in 277 people out of 1000 in the non-surgical group, 335 more people per 1000 (95% CI 75 fewer to 723 more) had an adverse event in the surgery group (2 studies, 144 participants). Three studies (176 participants) assessed participant satisfaction at two to nine year follow-up, reporting little difference between groups. Based on an assumed risk of 763 per 1000 non-surgical participants reporting excellent or good outcomes, seven more participants per 1000 (95% CI 199 fewer to 237 more) reported excellent or good satisfaction. Four studies (256 participants) assessed recurrent patellar subluxation at two to nine year follow-up. Based on an assumed risk of patellar subluxation in 292 out of 1000 in the non-surgical group, 73 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 146 fewer to 35 more) had patellar subluxation as a result of surgery. Slightly more people had subsequent surgery in the non-surgical group. Pooled two to nine year follow-up data from three trials (195 participants) indicated that, based on an assumed risk of subsequent surgery in 215 people per 1000 in the non-surgical group, 118 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 200 fewer to 372 more) had subsequent surgery after primary surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether surgery improves outcome compared to non-surgical management as the certainty of the evidence was very low. No sufficiently powered trial has examined people with recurrent patellar dislocation. Adequately powered, multicentre, randomised trials are needed. To inform the design and conduct of these trials, expert consensus should be achieved on the minimal description of both surgical and non-surgical interventions, and the pathological variations that may be relevant to both choice of these interventions.

Management of the first episode of traumatic patellar dislocation: an international survey

PURPOSE

This international survey aimed to evaluate the potential controversies regarding the management of first patellar dislocation amongst experienced knee surgeries in the treatment of the first episode of patellar dislocation without osteochondral fragments.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted from February 2021 to December 2021 to assess the global trend in the diagnosis and management of first-time patellar dislocation without osteochondral fragments. The online survey was accessible on the homepage of the website of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA). The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions and was divided into three sections. The first section consisted of eight questions regarding demographic information, professional activity, and responder experience. The second section consisted of 13 questions regarding the approach to a first patellar dislocation (clinical examination, imaging, and rehabilitation). The third section contained 2 questions concerning the relevance of patient characteristics to the therapeutic algorithm (age, sports, and pathoanatomical predisposing risk factors).

RESULTS

A total of 438 orthopaedic surgeons worldwide completed the questionnaire. At the first approach to diagnose a first-time patellar dislocation, 251 (57%) of the surgeons requested plain radiographs, and 158 (36%) requested magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In conservatively treated patients, 368 (84%) of the respondents recommended the use of a knee brace. Amongst them, 14 (3%) advocated its use for one week, 75 (17%) for two weeks, 123 (28%) for three weeks, 105 (24%) for four weeks, and 97 (22%) for six weeks. In conservatively treated patients, 215 (49%) of the surgeons recommended load to tolerance, 148 (34%) recommended 30% to 60% of the bodyweight, and 75 (17%) advised against weight-bearing. More than half of the surgeons considered a patient aged less than 35 years practising contact sports to be a candidate for the medial patello-femoral ligament (MPFL) procedure. In addition, a tibial tuberosity to trochlear groove distance (TT-TG) distance of 15 to > 20 mm (for > 75% of the surgeons) and a trochlea types C and D (for > 70% of the surgeons) were considered possible indications for direct surgical management.

CONCLUSION

At the first approach to diagnose a first-time patellar dislocation, plain radiographs and MRI should be performed. In conservatively treated patients, most of the surgeons recommend weight-bearing to tolerance and a knee brace during the first four weeks, with range of motion of full extension to 30° during the first 15 days and up to 60° for an additional 15 days. Surgical management should be performed in patients in the second and third decades of life practising contact sports and in those patients who present types C and D trochlea dysplasia and patella alta.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

MPFL repair after acute first-time patellar dislocation results in lower redislocation rates and less knee pain compared to rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the efficacy of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) repair versus nonoperative rehabilitation treatment on the rate of patellar redislocation and functional outcomes in skeletally mature patients with traumatic, first-time patellar dislocations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from database inception to May 2022 for studies examining the management options for acute first-time patellar dislocations. This study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines. Data on redislocation rates, functional outcomes including the Kujala score for anterior knee pain, and complication rates were extracted. A meta-analysis was used to pool the mean postoperative Kujala score and calculate the proportion of patients sustaining redislocations using a random effects model. Quality assessment of included studies was performed for all included studies using the MINORS and Detsky scores.

RESULTS

This review included a total of 25 studies and 1,361 patients. The pooled mean redislocation rate in 15 studies comprising 798 patients in the rehabilitation group was 30% (95% CI 25-36%, I² = 65%). Moreover, the pooled mean redislocation rate in 10 studies comprising 170 patients undergoing MPFL repair was 7% (95% CI 3-12%, I² = 30%). The pooled mean postoperative Kujala score in 8 studies comprising 396 patients in the rehabilitation group was 82.5 (95% CI 78.3-86.8, I² = 91%), compared to a score of 88 (95% CI 87-90, I² = 76%) in 3 studies comprising 94 patients in the repair group. Range of motion deficits was reported in 3.8% of 893 patients in the rehabilitation group and 2.0% of 205 patients in the repair group.

CONCLUSION

MPFL repair resulted in a lower rate of redislocation, less knee pain, and noninferiority with respect to a range of motion deficits compared to nonoperative treatment for the management of acute first-time patellar dislocations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comparing Nonoperative Treatment, MPFL Repair, and MPFL Reconstruction for Patients With Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Background:

Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, MPFL repair, and nonoperative treatment are important treatments for patients with patellar dislocation. However, it is unclear which treatment leads to better outcomes.

Purpose:

To determine the efficacy and safety of the 3 treatments in the treatment of patellar dislocation and compare the effect of MPFL reconstruction with MPFL repair, MPFL reconstruction with nonoperative treatment, and MPFL repair with nonoperative treatment.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to December 2020. Included were clinical studies that described the efficacy and safety of 2 of the 3 treatments, studies directly comparing the clinical effects of the 2 operative techniques, or studies comparing the effects of reconstruction or repair with nonoperative treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. The outcomes evaluated were postoperative redislocation rate, revision rate, complications, and Kujala score. We used traditional direct pairwise meta-analysis as well as network meta-analysis for comprehensive efficacy of all 3 treatment measures.

Results:

Twelve studies were included: 5 compared MPFL reconstruction with MPFL repair, 2 compared MPFL reconstruction with nonoperative treatment, and 5 compared MPFL repair with nonoperative treatment. The risk of bias was serious in 4, moderate in 4 and low in 4 articles. MPFL reconstruction led to significantly reduced redislocation and improved Kujala scores compared with MPFL repair and nonoperative treatment. MPFL repair led to reduced redislocation rates compared with nonoperative treatment but did not show an obvious benefit in primary dislocations. There was no significant difference among the 3 treatments in terms of revision rate and incidence of complications, although we found that treatment-related complications were least likely to occur in nonoperative treatment.

Conclusion:

The results of this review indicate that MPFL reconstruction decreases recurrent dislocation compared with MPFL repair or nonoperative treatment, but it has a higher possibility of complications. MPFL repair resulted in less postoperative redislocation than nonoperative treatment but did not show an obvious benefit in primary dislocation.