Stefan Lobner1,2, Christine Krauss3,4, Frank Reichwein4, Thilo Patzer5, Wolfgang Nebelung4, Arne J Venjakob4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Sports Medicine, Johanna-Etienne Hospital Neuss, Neuss, Germany. stefan.lobner@hhu.de. 2. Department of Rheumatology and Arthroscopy, Marienkrankenhaus Duesseldorf-Kaiserswerth, Duesseldorf, Germany. stefan.lobner@hhu.de. 3. Sports Clinic of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 4. Department of Rheumatology and Arthroscopy, Marienkrankenhaus Duesseldorf-Kaiserswerth, Duesseldorf, Germany. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospital of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: William R Walter; Hien Pham; Robert J Meislin; Laith M Jazrawi; Christopher J Burke Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Arya Haj-Mirzaian; Ali Guermazi; Michael Hakky; Christopher Sereni; Bashir Zikria; Frank W Roemer; Miho J Tanaka; Andrew J Cosgarea; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias J Feucht; Julian Mehl; Philipp Forkel; Andrea Achtnich; Andreas Schmitt; Kaywan Izadpanah; Andreas B Imhoff; Daniel P Berthold Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-06-22