| Literature DB >> 30253770 |
Jae-Ang Sim1, Jin-Kyu Lim2, Byung Hoon Lee3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the clinical availability of an adjustable-length loop device for use in the double-bundle technique with aperture fixation at the patella and femur during anatomic double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (DB-MPFLR) for recurrent patellar dislocation.Entities:
Keywords: Adjustable-length loop device; Aperture fixation; Double bundle; Medial patellofemoral ligament; Patella; Recurrent patellar dislocation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30253770 PMCID: PMC6156865 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2261-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Demographic Data on Patients
| No | Sex/Age | Episode | Patellar position | F/u period (months) | MFTA (o) | TT-TG distance (mm) | IS Ratioa | ROM (o) a | pVAS scorea | Kujala scorea | Lysholm scorea | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | |||||||
| 1 | F/18 | 2 | SL | 25 | 1.6 | 17.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 130 | 130 | 6 | 3 | 54 | 88 | 70 | 91 |
| 2 | F/13 | 4 | SL | 26 | 0.6 | 11.2 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 135 | 140 | 4 | 0 | 62 | 94 | 65 | 99 |
| 3 | M/14 | 3 | SL | 26 | 2.7 | 12.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 130 | 130 | 5 | 1 | 75 | 98 | 70 | 100 |
| 4 | M/16 | 2 | SL | 25 | −3.0 | 10.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 130 | 130 | 5 | 2 | 56 | 90 | 75 | 90 |
| 5 | F/28 | > 10 | SL | 24 | 1.1 | 16 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 120 | 125 | 7 | 2 | 56 | 84 | 74 | 85 |
| 6 | F/16 (Lt) | 2 | SL | 24 | 0.7 | 10.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 150 | 150 | 4 | 1 | 70 | 86 | 72 | 90 |
| (Rt) | 2 | SL | 26 | −1.7 | 15.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 140 | 140 | 4 | 1 | 72 | 86 | 70 | 90 | |
| 7 | M/22 | 2 | SL | 35 | 1.1 | 14.5 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 130 | 130 | 6 | 2 | 75 | 92 | 72 | 94 |
| 8 | M/19 | 5 | SL | 34 | 3.0 | 19.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 130 | 130 | 4 | 3 | 80 | 98 | 76 | 100 |
| 9 | F/26 | 4 | SL | 31 | −2.7 | 13.1 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 135 | 130 | 5 | 0 | 63 | 93 | 76 | 100 |
| 10 | M/18 | 2 | SL | 36 | −3.0 | 18.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 120 | 125 | 3 | 1 | 75 | 95 | 70 | 95 |
| 11 | F/18 | 2 | SL | 27 | −0.2 | 16.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 135 | 135 | 3 | 0 | 70 | 80 | 70 | 85 |
IS Ratio Insall-Salvati ratio, MFTA mechanical femorotibial angle, pVAS score Visual analogue scale for the anterior knee pain, ROM range of motion, SL Subluxation, TT-TG tibial tuberosity to trochlear groove
aIS Ratio and clinical scores (Kujala, Lysholm, and pVAS score) were evaluated at preoperatively and postoperative 2-year follow-up
Fig. 1Graft preparation
Fig. 2A 2-cm longitudinal incision was made at the medial border of the patella. The deep fascia and periosteum were detached and reflected medially. After minimal decortication of the reconstruction area, 2 suture anchors were inserted into the proximal margin and center of the medial aspect of the patella (a). The free graft ends were sutured to the inserted grafts after flipping them over through the detached periosteum (b and c). Looped graft with the adjustable-length loop device at the ending was brought into the separated layer between the vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) and the joint capsule, using long curved Kelly with caution to avoid any injury to the joint (d)
Fig. 3A femoral tunnel was made at the Schöttle point [2] (a) in the proximal and anterior direction in order to prevent iatrogenic peroneal nerve injury. b Intraoperative control was achieved using an image intensifier
Fig. 4The patellar position was tracked and fixed simultaneously by manual traction of the suture loops (b), and the graft was appropriately fixed in full range of motion of the knee joint with the lateral patellar edge positioned in line with the lateral trochlear border, under arthroscopic guidance (a, c)
Preoperative, Immediate Postoperative, and Two-year Follow-Up Radiologic Parametersa
| Knee flexion angle | Preop | Postop | F/U | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lateral patellofemoral angle (o) | 30 o | −7.6 ± 10.6 | 7.6 ± 3.1 | 8.8 ± 4.1 | ||
|
|
| |||||
| 45 o | −6.2 ± 6.5 | 9.2 ± 0.4 | 10.4 ± 4.6 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 60 o | −0.9 ± 5.6 | 11.0 ± 2.5 | 13.0 ± 3.2 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 90 o | 6.6 ± 3.4 | 12.2 ± 2.4 | 15.6 ± 3.2 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| Congruence angle (o) | 30 o | 30.1 ± 13.9 | 3.6 ± 1.5 | 2.9 ± 1.3 | ||
|
|
| |||||
| 45 o | 26.1 ± 15.2 | 2.9 ± 1.0 | 2.7 ± 1.0 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 60 o | 18.4 ± 11.0 | 2.8 ± 1.6 | 2.7 ± 1.4 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 90 o | 11.5 ± 7.4 | 1.7 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 1.0 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| Sulcus angle (o) | 30 o | 146.9 ± 7.4 | 145.3 ± 6.4 | 145.4 ± 5.5 | ||
|
|
| |||||
| 45 o | 146.6 ± 2.4 | 145.5 ± 1.7 | 146.0 ± 4.8 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 60 o | 146.1 ± 4.5 | 145.2 ± 5.9 | 146.5 ± 5.4 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| 90 o | 146.4 ± 3.4 | 145.8 ± 5.5 | 144.8 ± 5.0 | |||
|
|
| |||||
| IS Ratio | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | ||||
|
| ||||||
IS Ratio Insall-Salvati ratio
aValue are mean ± standard deviation
P-value was expressed in Italic
Values of P < 0.05 are displayed in bold
Fig. 5Changes in the congruence and lateral patellofemoral angles after the surgery