PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing nonoperative and operative treatment of patellar dislocations to elucidate the cause of the variation and to determine which meta-analysis provides the current best available evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature to identify meta-analyses was performed. Data were extracted for patient outcomes and recurrent dislocations. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: Four meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: 1 Level I evidence, 2 Level II evidence, and 1 Level III evidence. A total of 1,984 patients were included (997 underwent surgery whereas 987 underwent conservative treatment). Three meta-analyses found a lower subsequent patellar dislocation rate in patients managed operatively compared with nonoperatively, whereas one did not find a difference in recurrent dislocation rates between the operative and nonoperative groups. When the results of all the studies were combined, the overall redislocation rate was 29.4% and the rate of recurrent instability episodes was 32.8%. Patients treated operatively had a 24.0% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 32.7% rate of recurrent patellar instability, whereas patients treated nonoperatively had a 34.6% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 33.0% rate of recurrent instability. In addition, 1 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in the operative group. No differences in functional outcomes scores were seen between treatments. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<4), indicative of major flaws. CONCLUSIONS: According to the best available evidence, operative treatment of acute patellar dislocations may result in a lower rate of recurrent dislocations than nonoperative treatment but does not improve functional outcome scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and II studies.
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing nonoperative and operative treatment of patellar dislocations to elucidate the cause of the variation and to determine which meta-analysis provides the current best available evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature to identify meta-analyses was performed. Data were extracted for patient outcomes and recurrent dislocations. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: Four meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: 1 Level I evidence, 2 Level II evidence, and 1 Level III evidence. A total of 1,984 patients were included (997 underwent surgery whereas 987 underwent conservative treatment). Three meta-analyses found a lower subsequent patellar dislocation rate in patients managed operatively compared with nonoperatively, whereas one did not find a difference in recurrent dislocation rates between the operative and nonoperative groups. When the results of all the studies were combined, the overall redislocation rate was 29.4% and the rate of recurrent instability episodes was 32.8%. Patients treated operatively had a 24.0% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 32.7% rate of recurrent patellar instability, whereas patients treated nonoperatively had a 34.6% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 33.0% rate of recurrent instability. In addition, 1 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in the operative group. No differences in functional outcomes scores were seen between treatments. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<4), indicative of major flaws. CONCLUSIONS: According to the best available evidence, operative treatment of acute patellar dislocations may result in a lower rate of recurrent dislocations than nonoperative treatment but does not improve functional outcome scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and II studies.
Authors: Daniel K Schneider; Brian Grawe; Robert A Magnussen; Adrick Ceasar; Shital N Parikh; Eric J Wall; Angelo J Colosimo; Christopher C Kaeding; Gregory D Myer Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Sircana; Mario Fodale; Fabrizio Donati; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Robert A Magnussen; Megan Verlage; Elizabeth Stock; Lauren Zurek; David C Flanigan; Marc Tompkins; Julie Agel; Elizabeth A Arendt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Benedict U Nwachukwu; Conan So; William W Schairer; Daniel W Green; Emily R Dodwell Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Justin M Walsh; Hailey P Huddleston; Mohamad M Alzein; Stephanie E Wong; Brian Forsythe; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Adam B Yanke Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-02-05
Authors: Maximilian Petri; Max Ettinger; Timo Stuebig; Stephan Brand; Christian Krettek; Michael Jagodzinski; Mohamed Omar Journal: Arch Trauma Res Date: 2015-09-01