Clinical Comparison of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction With or Without Tibial Tuberosity Transfer for Recurrent Patellar Instability

Abstract

Background:

No clear guidelines or widespread consensus has defined a threshold value of tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance for choosing the appropriate surgical procedures when additional tibial tuberosity osteotomy (TTO) should be added to augment medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability.

Purpose:

To compare the clinical outcomes between MPFL reconstruction and MPFL reconstruction with TTO for patients who have patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients who underwent surgical treatment using either MPFL reconstruction or MPFL reconstruction with TTO for recurrent patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm; the mean follow-up was 25.2 months (range, 12.0-53.0 months). The patients were divided into 2 groups: isolated MPFL reconstruction (iMPFL group; n = 36) performed by 2 surgeons and MPFL reconstruction with TTO (TTO group; n = 45) performed by another 2 surgeons. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Kujala score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner activity score. Radiological parameters, including patellar height, TT-TG distance, patellar tilt, and congruence angle were compared between the 2 groups. Functional failure based on clinical apprehension sign, repeat subluxation or dislocation, and subjective instability and complications was assessed at the final follow-up. We also compared clinical outcomes based on subgroups of preoperative TT-TG distance (15 mm ≤ TT-TG ≤ 20 mm vs 20 mm < TT-TG ≤ 25 mm).

Results:

All of the clinical outcome parameters significantly improved in both groups at the final follow-up (P < .001), with no significant differences between groups. The radiological parameters also showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. The incidence of functional failure was similar between the 2 groups (3 failures in the TTO group and 2 failures in the iMPFL group; P = .42). In the TTO group, 1 patient experienced a repeat dislocation postoperatively and 2 patients had subjective instability; in the iMPFL group, 2 patients had subjective instability. The prevalence of complications did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .410). In the subgroup analysis based on TT-TG distance, we did not note any differences in clinical outcomes between iMPFL and TTO groups in subgroups of 15 mm ≤ TT-TG ≤ 20 mm and 20 mm < TT-TG ≤ 25 mm.

Conclusion:

MPFL reconstruction with and without TTO provided similar, satisfactory clinical outcomes and low redislocation rates for patients who had patellar instability with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm, without statistical difference. Thus, our findings suggest that iMPFL reconstruction is a safe and reliable treatment for patients with recurrent patellar dislocation with a TT-TG distance of 15 to 25 mm, without the disadvantages derived from TTO.