Surgical treatment of patellar instability: clinical and radiological outcome after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction and tibial tuberosity medialisation
- 464 Downloads
The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse clinical and radiological outcome after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) and tibial tuberosity medialisation (TTM) in patients with recurrent patellar instability.
Materials and methods
Thirty-five patients were included between 2008 and 2012. According to defined criteria such as tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TTTG) distance, hyperpression on the lateral patella facet and lateral retropatellar cartilage damage either MPFLR (group A) or TTM (group B) was performed: 18 patients underwent TTM, the other 17 patients underwent MPFLR. At a mean of 25.4 ± 9.7 (group A) and 35.2 ± 17.6 months (group B) patients were clinically and radiologically reviewed. Validated knee scores such as Kujala, Lysholm and Tegner score were evaluated.
In both groups one patient reported of a non-traumatic patellar redislocation. Patients who underwent MPFLR (group A) had less pain postoperatively during activity according to the Visual Analogue Scale (group A: 2.0 ± 2.1 points, group B: 3.9 ± 2.3 points). Retropatellar cartilage damage increased in group B from grade 1 (range: 1–3) preoperatively to grade 2 (range 1–3) postoperatively (p > 0.05). All other clinically evaluated items, as well as the applied knee scoring systems, indicated no significant difference (p > 0.05) and displayed good to excellent results.
MPFLR and TTM leed to good clinical results despite its own indications. For this reason—in selected cases—TTM may still be a suitable procedure for surgical treatment of patellar instability. However, patients treated by TTM (group B) revealed an increased retropatellar cartilage damage as well as significantly more pain during activity.
KeywordsPatellar instability Recurrent patellar dislocation MPFL reconstruction Tibial tuberosity transfer
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Author Stefan Lobner, Author Christine Krauss, Author Frank Reichwein, Author Thilo Patzer, Author Wolfgang Nebelung, and Author Arne J. Venjakob declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 14.Alaia MJ, Cohn RM, Strauss EJ (2014) Patellar instability. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2013(72):6–17Google Scholar
- 15.Outerbridge RE (1961) The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 43–B:752–757Google Scholar
- 17.Trillat A, Dejour H, Couette A (1964) Diagnosis and treatment of recurrent dislocations of the patella. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 50:813–824Google Scholar
- 31.Dejour H, Walch G, Neyret P, Adeleine P (1990) Dysplasia of the femoral trochlea. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 76:45–54Google Scholar
- 33.Caton J, Deschamps G, Chambat P et al (1982) Patella infera. Apropos of 128 cases. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 68:317–325Google Scholar
- 34.Caton J, Mironneau A, Walch G et al (1990) Idiopathic high patella in adolescents. Apropos of 61 surgical cases. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 76:253–260Google Scholar
- 49.Nelitz M, Lippacher S, Reichel H, Dornacher D (2014) Evaluation of trochlear dysplasia using MRI: correlation between the classification system of Dejour and objective parameters of trochlear dysplasia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 22:120–127. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2321-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar