Interference Screw Versus Suture Anchors for Femoral Fixation in Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study

What is the best fixation method in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction? A biomechanical comparison of common methods for femoral graft attachment

INTRODUCTION

A variety of techniques have been described for femoral fixation in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLr). The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of the most used methods for graft fixation in the femur using human cadaveric tissue. We wondered what is the best fixation method for femoral fixation in MPFL reconstruction?

HYPOTHESIS

A suspensory fixation device provides the best femoral fixation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Twenty cadaveric knees were tested. Four femoral fixation methods were compared (5 knees per group): interference fixation with a Biosure© RG 5 mm and a 7 mm, suture anchor (Healicoil Regenesorb 4.75 mm ©) and suspensory fixation with the Ultrabutton©. The testing was divided in preconditioning, cyclic loading and load to failure. Load to failure, elongation, stiffness and mode of failure were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The Ultrabutton© had the highest mean ultimate load (427 ± 215 N (p = 0.5)), followed by Healicoil anchor © (308 ± 44 N (p > 0.05)) and the interference screw of 7 mm (255 ± 170 N (p > 0.05)). Mean stiffness was similar in the Ultrabutton© and 4.75 mm. Healicoil anchor © groups (111 ± 21 N/mm and 119 ± 20 N/mm respectively), and lowest in 7 mm Biosure© screw fixation group (90 ± 5 N/mm). The Biosure© 5 mm RG screw presented 100% of premature rupture because of tendon slippage. The Ultrabutton© presented the lowest premature rupture (40%).

DISCUSSION

A suspensory fixation for the femur had the lowest number of graft failures and highest load to failure. This study has implications for surgeons' choice of graft fixation in MPFLr. It is the first study to test the most commonly femoral used fixation methods, allowing direct comparisons between each method.

The Adductor Sling Technique for Pediatric Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Better Resists Dislocation Loads When Compared With Adductor Transfer at Time Zero in a Cadaveric Model

Purpose

To characterize the ability of the intact medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) and the adductor transfer and adductor sling MPFL reconstruction techniques to resist subluxation and dislocation in a cadaveric model.

Methods

Nine fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were placed on a custom testing fixture with the femur fixed parallel to the floor, the tibia placed in 20° of flexion, and the patella attached to a load cell. The patella was displaced laterally, and subluxation load (in newtons), dislocation load (in newtons), maximum failure load (in newtons), patellar displacement at failure, and mode of failure were recorded. Testing was conducted with the MPFL intact and after the adductor sling and adductor transfer reconstruction techniques. Statistical analysis was completed using 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance with the Holm-Šidák post hoc test.

Results

The subluxation load was not significantly different between groups. The native MPFL dislocation load was significantly higher than the dislocation loads of both reconstruction techniques, but no significant difference between the dislocation loads of the 2 reconstruction techniques occurred. The native MPFL failure load was significantly higher than the failure loads of both reconstruction techniques. The adductor sling failure load was significantly higher than the adductor transfer failure load. The mode of failure varied across groups. The native MPFL failed by femoral avulsion, patellar avulsion, and midsubstance tear. The main mode of failure for adductor transfer was pullout, whereas failure for the adductor sling technique most often occurred at the sutures. Most of the native MPFLs and all adductor sling reconstructions failed after dislocation. The adductor transfer reconstructions were much more variable, with failures spanning from before subluxation through dislocation.

Conclusions

Our cadaveric model showed that neither the adductor transfer technique nor the adductor sling technique restored failure load to that of the native condition. There was no significant difference in the subluxation or dislocation loads between the 2 MPFL reconstructions, but the adductor sling technique resulted in a higher load to failure. The adductor transfer technique frequently failed before subluxation or dislocation when compared with the adductor sling technique and the native MPFL.

Clinical Relevance

The best technique for MPFL reconstruction in patients with open physes is a topic of debate. Given the long-term consequences of MPFL injury and potential for growth plate disturbance, it is important to study MPFL reconstruction techniques thoroughly, including in the laboratory setting.

Interference Screws Are Biomechanically Superior to Suture Anchors for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the biomechanical properties of the interference screw (IS) versus suture anchor (SA) techniques for patellar and femoral fixation of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of IS and SA techniques for MPFL reconstruction. The search phrase implemented was “medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction biomechanics.” Evaluated outcomes included ultimate load to failure (N), stiffness (N/mm), and mode of failure. Forest plots were created for statistical analysis and heterogeneity was assessed via I² statistic.

Results

Six studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 108 cadaveric specimens, for MPFL patellar fixation, and 3 studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 50 cadaveric specimens, for MPFL femoral fixation. Pooled analysis from 5 studies reporting on stiffness for MPFL patellar fixation revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of IS compared with SA (P = .007). Pooled analysis from 3 studies reporting on ultimate load to failure of femoral fixation revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of IS compared with SA (P = .043).

Conclusions

The use of IS was associated with a greater stiffness compared with the use of SA in MPFL patellar fixation, but there was no difference in load to failure between IS and SA. The use of IS was associated with a greater load to failure compared with the use of SA in MPFL femoral fixation, but there was no difference in stiffness between IS and SA.

Clinical Relevance

There have been multiple individual biomechanical studies conducted comparing IS and SA fixation for MPFL patellar and femoral fixation; however, they have yielded conflicting results, with small sample sizes. Pooling the data from these studies in a meta-analysis may allow for more meaningful biomechanical data to coincide with the existing, albeit scarce, clinical data, this may help to inform clinical decision making for surgeons managing these injuries.

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability is safe and effective

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction techniques in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability, focusing on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), redislocation rate, and complications. The hypothesis was that hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability is safe and effective.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library databases were accessed in October 2021. All the clinical studies investigating the efficacy and feasibility of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction were screened for inclusion. Only studies with a minimum 24-month follow-up were considered eligible. Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale improvement and redislocation rate after surgical treatment were evaluated as primary outcomes. The rate of postoperative complications was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The quality of the methodological assessment was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the present systematic review. The quality of the methodological assessment was moderate. Short- to long-term improvement of Kujala score was observed in all included studies. Mean score improvement ranged from + 13.2/100 to + 54/100, with mean postoperative scores ranging from 82/100 to 94/100. Patellar redislocation was observed in 8.33% (8 of 96) patients.

CONCLUSION

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction with or without associated soft-tissue or bony realignment procedures provided reliable clinical improvements and was associated with a low rate of redislocation in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability. Advantages such as safety, femoral physis preservation, and comparable complication profiles with implant-based techniques endorse its implementation. Orthopedic surgeons in cost-sensitive environments may also benefit their patients with lower costs, no need for implants, lack of implant-related complications, or surgery for implant removal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.