Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Using the Medial Third of the Patellar Tendon: Camanho's Technique.

The reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is an essential procedure in the surgical treatment of patellar instability. The medial third of the patellar tendon is a good graft option for this reconstruction, maintaining the insertion of the graft in the patella, with no need for hardware for patellar fixation. The objective of this article is to describe the MPFL reconstruction technique with the patellar tendon graft.

Comparison Between Continuous and Separate Grafts for ALL Reconstruction When Combined With ACL Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: While various techniques have been described to augment the anterolateral side of the knee, such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction (ALLR), it is unclear how they affect clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 ALLR techniques for combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)/ALL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: The graft rupture rate, complications, and patient-reported outcomes are similar between a reconstruction technique using a continuous gracilis graft (CG) and single femoral tunnel for ACL/ALL reconstruction, and one using a separate gracilis graft (SG) and independent femoral tunnels. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively at 2 hospitals was conducted: one in which a CG is preferred when performing combined ACL/ALL reconstruction and the other in which an SG is preferred. The medical records at these 2 hospitals were searched to identify ACL-deficient patients who had undergone ACL/ALL reconstruction between 2015 and 2020. Eligible patients were between 18 and 60 years of age, had the reconstruction surgery done within 24 months of the injury, and had ≥2 years of follow-up. The eligible patients were contacted to gather outcomes, or their outcomes were collected in person during their last follow-up visit. Outcomes evaluated included graft rupture rate, complication rate, and Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) scores. Preoperative and intraoperative data were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were available for analysis in the GC group and 178 in the SG group with a mean follow-up of 3 years (CG: SD, 9.6 months; SG: SD, 8.1 months). The authors found a low rate of graft rupture (CG: 3.4%; SG: 2.8%; P = .785) and no difference between techniques. The complication rate was 6% in the CG group, while it was 10% in the SG group (P = .112). The mean value of the IKDC-SKF was similar between techniques (CG: 88.1; SG: 87.9; P = .267), and the mean Lysholm score was excellent in both sets of patients (CG: 90.0; SG: 92.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study found little to no difference in the graft rupture rate, complication rate, and functional knee scores when using a CG or SG for ALLR during combined ACL/ALL reconstruction. Both techniques are equivalent and can be used for an anterolateral augmentation procedure in combination with ACL reconstruction.

The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the failure rate in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction alone or associated with an extra-articular procedure. Secondary objectives were to compare ACL laxity, patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates in these patients and, subsequently, to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with anatomical anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified into 2 groups, according to whether (group 2) or not (group 1) an extra-articular reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent an extra-articular procedure were further divided into ALL reconstruction (group 2A) and LET (group 2B). Baseline demographic variables, operative data and postoperative data were evaluated. RESULTS: The groups with (86 patients) and without (88 patients) an associated extra-articular reconstruction had similar preoperative data. Group 2 had a lower failure rate (4.6% vs 14.7%; P = .038), better KT-1000, better pivot-shift, and better Lysholm. There was no difference regarding complications, except more lateral pain in group 2. Regarding the groups who underwent ALL reconstruction (41 patients) and LET (46 patients), group 2A showed better Lysholm scores. Both groups had similar failure rates and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a laterally based augmentation procedure had a lower failure rate than patients who underwent isolated revision ACL reconstruction. KT-1000 and pivot-shift examination were also significantly better when a lateral augmentation was performed. Complications were similar except for an increase in lateral pain in the augmented group. No clinically important differences were found when comparing the LET group to the ALL group other than a statistical improvement in the Lysholm functional scale, likely not clinically meaningful, favoring the ALL group and an increased duration of post-operative lateral pain in the LET group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.