Abstract:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 11, November 2024. Background:Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is a common treatment for patellar instability. Yet nearly 40% of revisions result from femoral tunnel misplacement. One reason may be the positioning of the C-arm relative to the knee.Purpose:To assess how the C-arm's position affects femoral MPFL placement when the image receptor is positioned either contralateral or ipsilateral to the operated knee.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Ten human cadaveric knee specimens were dissected, and the femoral MPFL insertion site was identified and marked using a 10-mm eyelet. According to the possible clinical scenarios, true lateral radiographs in 2 different C-arm positions were taken. In the first scenario, the image receptor was on the ipsilateral side, being 5 cm away from the knee with the x-ray beam directed from medial to lateral (ML5). In the second scenario, the image receptor was on the contralateral side, being 25 cm away from the knee with the x-ray beam directed from lateral to medial (LM25). In each radiograph, the eyelet position was recorded and the distance (proximal-distal and anterior-posterior) from the optimal radiographic insertion point according to the literature was determined. Differences between the groups were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and a P value of <.05 was considered significant.Results:The anatomic femoral MPFL insertion in the ML5-position was located a mean of 2.7 ± 2.4 mm proximal and 4.5 ± 5.5 mm anterior to the Schöttle point. This resulted in an absolute distance of 7.2 ± 3.0 mm. In the LM25-position, it was located a mean of –0.7 ± 1.8 mm distal and 3.0 ± 5.3 mm anterior, which resulted in an absolute distance of 5.4 ± 3.2 mm. The ML5 was located more anterior (1.5 ± 2.1 mm) and proximal (3.4 ± 2.4 mm) compared with the LM25 position. Measurements following methods described in the literature significantly differed in both axes in the LM25 view when compared with the ML5 view measurements (P = .005).Conclusion:Compared with the ipsilateral C-arm position (ML5), the contralateral C-arm position (LM25) showed a smaller range with a lower standard deviation in identifying the femoral MPFL approach across all measurement methods.Clinical Relevance:When applying the method according to Schöttle et al to locate the femoral MPFL insertion point, it should be noted that in the proximal-distal orientation, the femoral MPFL insertion point is situated proximal to the Blumensaat line in the contralateral view (LM25). In contrast, when using the ipsilateral view (ML5), the femoral MPFL footprint is positioned just distal to the proximal edge of the medial condyle.

Comparison of five different fluoroscopic methods for identifying the MPFL femoral footprint

A Novel Technique of Arthroscopic Femoral Tunnel Placement During Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction for Recurrent Patellar Dislocation

Comparison of femoral tunnel position and knee function in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study using measuring-fluoroscopy method versus bony marker method

[Research progress on femoral attachment positioning during medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction]

The Effect of C-Arm Position on Femoral Tunnel Placement in Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

Using Anatomic Landmarks to Locate Schöttle’s Point Was Accurate Without Fluoroscopy During Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

MPFL reconstruction with proximal rather than distal femoral tunnel position leads to less favorable short-term results

Using Anatomic Landmarks to Locate Schöttle's Point Was Accurate Without Fluoroscopy During Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Clinical outcomes of transtibial versus anteromedial drilling techniques to prepare the femoral tunnel during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Three different patellar fixation techniques yield similar clinical and radiological outcomes in recurrent patellar dislocation undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction

Editorial Commentary: Proper Femoral Tunnel Placement for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Requires Optimal Radiographic Technique

The Position of the Posterolateral Bundle Femoral Tunnel During Arthroscopic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study

Biomechanical Properties and Kinematics of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

An MRI study demonstrating consistent anatomic relation of central longitudinal artery and associated periosteal vessels with the medial femoral epicondyle and adductor tubercle—A visual landmark method for femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction

Arthroscopic Patellofemoral Measurements Can Reliably Assess Patellar Instability

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with an extensor hallucis longus allograft: a retrospective study of 45 cases

Comparison of fluoroscopic techniques for assessment of femoral rotational alignment

High flexion femoral side remnant preservation positioning technique: a new method for positioning the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anatomic femoral tunnel placement is difficult by the transtibial technique: comparison of three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

Evaluation of Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Techniques to Estimate Femoral Rotation: A Cadaveric Study