These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical Comparison of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction With or Without Tibial Tuberosity Transfer for Recurrent Patellar Instability.
    Author: Kim JM, Sim JA, Yang H, Kim YM, Wang JH, Seon JK.
    Journal: Am J Sports Med; 2021 Oct; 49(12):3335-3343. PubMed ID: 34494477.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: No clear guidelines or widespread consensus has defined a threshold value of tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance for choosing the appropriate surgical procedures when additional tibial tuberosity osteotomy (TTO) should be added to augment medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between MPFL reconstruction and MPFL reconstruction with TTO for patients who have patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients who underwent surgical treatment using either MPFL reconstruction or MPFL reconstruction with TTO for recurrent patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm; the mean follow-up was 25.2 months (range, 12.0-53.0 months). The patients were divided into 2 groups: isolated MPFL reconstruction (iMPFL group; n = 36) performed by 2 surgeons and MPFL reconstruction with TTO (TTO group; n = 45) performed by another 2 surgeons. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Kujala score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner activity score. Radiological parameters, including patellar height, TT-TG distance, patellar tilt, and congruence angle were compared between the 2 groups. Functional failure based on clinical apprehension sign, repeat subluxation or dislocation, and subjective instability and complications was assessed at the final follow-up. We also compared clinical outcomes based on subgroups of preoperative TT-TG distance (15 mm ≤ TT-TG ≤ 20 mm vs 20 mm < TT-TG ≤ 25 mm). RESULTS: All of the clinical outcome parameters significantly improved in both groups at the final follow-up (P < .001), with no significant differences between groups. The radiological parameters also showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. The incidence of functional failure was similar between the 2 groups (3 failures in the TTO group and 2 failures in the iMPFL group; P = .42). In the TTO group, 1 patient experienced a repeat dislocation postoperatively and 2 patients had subjective instability; in the iMPFL group, 2 patients had subjective instability. The prevalence of complications did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .410). In the subgroup analysis based on TT-TG distance, we did not note any differences in clinical outcomes between iMPFL and TTO groups in subgroups of 15 mm ≤ TT-TG ≤ 20 mm and 20 mm < TT-TG ≤ 25 mm. CONCLUSION: MPFL reconstruction with and without TTO provided similar, satisfactory clinical outcomes and low redislocation rates for patients who had patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm, without statistical difference. Thus, our findings suggest that iMPFL reconstruction is a safe and reliable treatment for patients with recurrent patellar dislocation with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm, without the disadvantages derived from TTO.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]