| Literature DB >> 34289826 |
Peng Su1, Xiumin Liu2, Nengri Jian2, Jian Li3, Weili Fu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction combined with tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) and lateral retinacular release (LRR) is one of the main treatment methods for patellar instability. So far, few studies have evaluated the clinical effectiveness and assessed potential risk factors for recurrent patellar instability.Entities:
Keywords: Caton-Deschamps index; Lateral retinacular release; Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction; Patellar alta; Recurrent patellar instability; Tibial tubercle osteotomy; Tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance; Trochlear dysplasia
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34289826 PMCID: PMC8296593 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04508-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Line A (yellow line): the distance from the lowest point of patellar-articular surface to the anterior edge of tibial plateau; Line B (red line): the length of patellar articular surface. CDI = A/B; CDInormal = 1; Anormal = B; Aactual = CDIactual × B; The amount of distalization = Anormal-Aactual
Fig. 2The Flow Chart of the Research. It mainly introduced the process of screening patients
Fig. 3A-B: wedge-shaped osteotomy was done at the tibial tubercle; C- D: wedge-shaped osteotomy was done at the medial or /and inferior part of tibial tubercle; E–G: the position of the two bone mass was exchanged; H: the bone mass with patellar tendon was fixed with two 4.5 * 40 mm absorbable screws
Fig. 4A: two parallel bone tunnels with a diameter of 4.5 mm were drilled in the medial side of the patella; B-C: The grafts were placed into the bone tunnel guided by a trans-femoral pin; D: another tunnel with a diameter of 6.0 mm was drilled on the site between the adductor tubercle and the proximal part of the superficial medial collateral ligament, the graft was then secured within the tunnel with a diameter of 6-mm interference screw and fixed at 30° of knee flexion
Descriptive Characteristics of the Population before Surgery
| Variable | n(%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| male | 30 (28) |
| female | 78 (72) |
| Age at surgery, y | |
| Mean ± SD | 19.2 ± 6.1 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 13; 40 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | |
| Mean ± SD | 21.7 ± 3.4 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 16.6; 37.6 |
| Side | |
| Right | 52 (48) |
| Left | 56 (52) |
| Patellar height(CDI) | |
| Mean ± SD | 1.2 ± 0.22 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 0.5; 1.6 |
| Class of patellar height | |
| < 1.3 | 36 (33) |
| ≥ 1.3 | 72 (67) |
| Trochlear dysplasia | |
| Type A | 26 (24) |
| Type B | 18 (17) |
| Type C | 38 (35) |
| Type D | 26 (24) |
| TT-TG distance, mm | |
| Mean ± SD | 22 ± 3.0 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 17; 30 |
| Class of TT-TG distance, mm | |
| < 20 | 30 (28) |
| ≥ 20 | 78 (72) |
| Postoperative Kujala score | |
| Mean ± SD | 90.5 ± 15.5 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 24; 100 |
| Postoperative Tegner score | |
| Mean ± SD | 5.3 ± 1.3 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 2; 8 |
| Postoperative IKDC score | |
| Mean ± SD | 72.7 ± 12.1 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 26; 86 |
| Follow-up, m | |
| Mean ± SD | 61.3 ± 15.4 |
| Minimum; Maximum | 36; 92 |
| Status at the follow-up | |
| Success | 102 (94) |
| Failure | 6 (6) |
Fig. 5Outcomes According to Risk Factor
Analysis of Preoperative Failure Risk Factors of Combined Treatment
| Analyzed Factor | patients, n | Comparison | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patellar height (CDI) | 108 | ≥ 1.3 vs < 1.3 | 0.088 |
| Sex | 108 | female vs male | 0.669 |
| Age, y | 108 | ≥ 18 vs < 18 | 0.011 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 108 | ≥ 25 vs < 25 | 1.000 |
| TT-TG distance, mm | 108 | ≥ 20 vs < 20 | 0.336 |
| Trochlear dysplasia | 108 | type A vs B vs C vs D | 0.016 |