Combined trochleoplasty and MPFL reconstruction for treatment of chronic patellofemoral instability: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: Excessive trochlear dysplasia may be responsible for recurrent patellofemoral instability (PFI) due to a missing bony guidance for the patella in early flexion. Thus, an isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) can be insufficient, since it mainly addresses instability close to extension and additionally can increase patellofemoral pressure leading to pain in flat or convex trochlear dysplasia. Therefore, in combination with a trochleoplasty, an anatomical trochlear groove is created, resulting in patellofemoral stability also in flexion, while patellofemoral pressure is normalized. In this prospective study, we evaluated the outcome of open trochleoplasty in combination with MPFLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years for treatment of excessive PFI. METHODS: In between 2007 and 2009, 18 knees of 17 consecutive patients (mean age of 22.2 ± 4.9 years) with trochlear dysplasia type B, C or D according to Dejour et al. and positive apprehension from 0 to 60° of flexion were included. Tegner, Kujala and IKDC scores, apprehension and pain, trochlear dysplasia, sulcus angle, tibial tuberosity trochlear groove, patellar tilt and shift, Caton-Deschamps index as well as patellofemoral arthrosis according to the classification of Iwano et al. were assessed pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: At a mean of 30.5 ± 5.9 months, all but one patient were subjectively satisfied with the outcome of the procedure, all showing absence of positive apprehension or redislocation. Significant (p < 0.001) reduction in pain (5.6 to 2.5 ± 2.8 points, VAS) and increase in Tegner (2, range 0-4 points to 6, range 3-8 points), Kujala (51.1 to 87.9 ± 20.0 points) and IKDC (49.5 to 80.2 ± 21.0%) scores could be achieved. Radiologically significant (p < 0.02) improvement of patellofemoral positional parameters leading to more normal anatomy was recorded, while short-term arthrosis was absent. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment for trochleoplasty with MPFLR serves as a successful therapy for chronic PFI. This combinatory treatment concept is a reliable option not only as salvage therapy but also as primary procedure regarding treatment for excessive PFI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective case series, Level IV.

Isolated and combined medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in revision surgery for patellofemoral instability: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain and redislocations after surgical treatment of patellofemoral instability are described in up to 40% of patients. However, prospective outcome data about revision surgery are missing. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcome after revision medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction using isolated and combined procedures, with a follow-up of 24 months. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Study participants were 42 patients (median age, 22 years; range, 13-46 years) who underwent revision surgery between January 2007 and December 2009 because of persistent patellofemoral instability after a mean of 1.8 previous failed surgical interventions (lateral release, medial imbrication/vastus medialis obliquus distalization, medialization of the tuberosity). An isolated MPFL reconstruction was performed in 15 cases, while a combination procedure was performed in 27 cases. The clinical results were evaluated preoperatively and 24 months postoperatively using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Kujala, and Tegner scores as well as a subjective questionnaire. Patellar shift, tilt, and height, as well as level of degeneration, were defined preoperatively and at the latest follow-up on plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: At 24-month follow-up, 87% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment. No apprehension or redislocation was reported at follow-up, and there was a significant decrease in pain during daily activities. There were significant improvements (P < .001) in IKDC (from 50 to 80), Kujala (from 51 to 85), and Tegner scores (from 2.4 to 4.9). Patellar shift, tilt, and height decreased significantly (P < .05) to anatomic values, and there was no aggravation to the level of pre-existing degeneration. No significant difference was noticed between the isolated and combined procedures. CONCLUSION: As patellofemoral instability is a multifactorial problem, revision surgery should be indicated only after a comprehensive examination. The results of this study show that MPFL reconstruction, alone or in combination, seems to be an effective treatment for recurrent patellar dislocations after a failed previous surgery, leading to significant increases in stability and functionality as well as a reduction in pain.