Olaf Lorbach1, Nikolaus Zumbansen2, Matthias Kieb3, Turgay Efe4, Antonius Pizanis5, Dieter Kohn2, Alexander Haupert2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg (Saar), Germany; Sporthopaedicum Straubing-Berlin-Regensburg-Munich, Germany. Electronic address: olaf.lorbach@gmx.de. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg (Saar), Germany. 3. Department of Orthopaedic an Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Potsdam/Bad Belzig, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Marburg University, Marburg, Germany. 5. Department of Trauma-Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg (Saar), Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Objective evaluation of the optimal graft tension angle to fully restore patellofemoral contact pressure in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) in comparison to the native knee. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric knee specimens were fixed in a custom-made fixation device. A sensitive pressure film (Tekscan) was fixed in the patellofemoral joint, and patellofemoral contact pressure was assessed during a dynamic flexion movement from 0° to 90°. The MPFL was cut and measurements were repeated. Reconstruction of the MPFL was performed with the gracilis tendon subsequently fixed in the femur at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90° of knee flexion under controlled tension (2 N). The sequence of the flexion angles was alternated. Pressure measurements were repeated after every fixation of the graft. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in the overall patellofemoral contact pressure compared to the native knee (P > .05). However, medial patellofemoral pressure showed a significant increased patellofemoral contact pressure after MPFL reconstruction at a knee flexion angle during graft fixation of 15° (P = .027), 45° (P = .050, P = .044), and 75° (P = .039). Moreover, proximal/distal patellofemoral contact pressure revealed a significantly reduced contact pressure at 15° (P = .003), 30° (P = .009), 45° (P = .025), 75° (P = .021), and 90° (P = .022) of flexion distal after MPFL reconstruction compared with the intact knee. Lateral patellofemoral contact pressure was significantly reduced in all performed reconstructions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The flexion angle during graft fixation for MPFL reconstruction did not have a significant impact on the overall patellofemoral contact pressure. However, selective medial, proximal, distal, and lateral patellofemoral contact pressure was significantly altered for all reconstructions. Fixation of the MPFL graft at 60° of flexion was able to most closely restore patellofemoral contact pressure compared with the intact knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the findings of the present study, fixation of the graft in anatomic reconstruction of the MPFL should be considered in 60° of flexion under low tension (2 N) to most closely restore patellofemoral contact pressure compared with the native knee.
PURPOSE: Objective evaluation of the optimal graft tension angle to fully restore patellofemoral contact pressure in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) in comparison to the native knee. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric knee specimens were fixed in a custom-made fixation device. A sensitive pressure film (Tekscan) was fixed in the patellofemoral joint, and patellofemoral contact pressure was assessed during a dynamic flexion movement from 0° to 90°. The MPFL was cut and measurements were repeated. Reconstruction of the MPFL was performed with the gracilis tendon subsequently fixed in the femur at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90° of knee flexion under controlled tension (2 N). The sequence of the flexion angles was alternated. Pressure measurements were repeated after every fixation of the graft. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in the overall patellofemoral contact pressure compared to the native knee (P > .05). However, medial patellofemoral pressure showed a significant increased patellofemoral contact pressure after MPFL reconstruction at a knee flexion angle during graft fixation of 15° (P = .027), 45° (P = .050, P = .044), and 75° (P = .039). Moreover, proximal/distal patellofemoral contact pressure revealed a significantly reduced contact pressure at 15° (P = .003), 30° (P = .009), 45° (P = .025), 75° (P = .021), and 90° (P = .022) of flexion distal after MPFL reconstruction compared with the intact knee. Lateral patellofemoral contact pressure was significantly reduced in all performed reconstructions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The flexion angle during graft fixation for MPFL reconstruction did not have a significant impact on the overall patellofemoral contact pressure. However, selective medial, proximal, distal, and lateral patellofemoral contact pressure was significantly altered for all reconstructions. Fixation of the MPFL graft at 60° of flexion was able to most closely restore patellofemoral contact pressure compared with the intact knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the findings of the present study, fixation of the graft in anatomic reconstruction of the MPFL should be considered in 60° of flexion under low tension (2 N) to most closely restore patellofemoral contact pressure compared with the native knee.
Authors: Paolo Ferrua; Bradley M Kruckeberg; Stefano Pasqualotto; Massimo Berruto; Pietro Randelli; Elizabeth A Arendt Journal: J Orthop Traumatol Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Vicente Sanchis-Alfonso; Gerard Ginovart; Diego Alastruey-López; Erik Montesinos-Berry; Joan Carles Monllau; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; María Angeles Pérez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.241