Medial Patellofemoral Complex Reconstruction (combined Reconstruction of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament and Medial Quadriceps Tendon–Femoral Ligament) with Semitendinosus Autograft Resulted in Similar Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes to Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction in Treating Recurrent Patellar Dislocation

Fengyi Hu,Cheng Wang,Yingying Du,Zejing Guo,Keying Zhang,Yong Ma,Yuping Yang,Xi Gong,Haijun Wang,Ping Liu,Weli Shi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.079
2024-01-01
Abstract:Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R) and medial patellofemoral complex reconstruction (MPFC-R) for recurrent patellar dislocation. Outcome measures were compared based on the InsallSalvati index. Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with recurrent patellar dislocation and underwent either MPFL-R or MPFC-R (combined reconstruction of MPFL and medial quadriceps tendon -femoral ligament) were retrospectively analyzed. Group allocation was based on surgical procedure and patient characteristics were collected. Clinical assessments included patient -reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return -to -sports rates. Minimal clinically important difference analysis was performed. A subgroup analysis of PROMs was carried out between patients with an InsallSalvati index < 1.2 versus > 1.2. The patellar tilt angle, lateral patellar displacement, and bisect offset ratio were measured pre- and post-surgery. Functional failures and complications were assessed. Results: Overall, 70 patients (72 knees) in the MPFL-R group and 58 patients (61 knees) in the MPFC-R group were included. Patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. At a minimum follow-up of 24 (mean, 50.6 +/- 22.1) months, all PROMs were substantially improved ( P < .001), without signi fi cant intergroup differences. The percentages of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference were similar after MPFL-R and MPFC-R: 98.6% versus 93.4% (International Knee Documentation Committee), 97.2% versus 98.4% (Lysholm), 98.6% versus 100% (Kujala), and 77.8% versus 72.1% (Tegner). The subgroup analysis based on patellar height and the return -to -sport rates also suggested comparable results. Radiographic evaluation demonstrated signi fi cantly smaller lateral patellar displacements ( P = .004) and bisect offset ratios ( P < .001) but similar patellar tilt angles after MPFC-R. Four (5.6%) patients receiving MPFL-R and 2 (3.3%) patients receiving MPFC-R reported recurrence of functional instability, without statistically signi fi cant difference. Conclusions: MPFC-R resulted in similar overall clinical and radiographic outcomes to MPFL-R in treating recurrent patellar dislocation. MPFC-R might not provide additional bene fi ts for patients with an InsallSalvati index > 1.2.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?