Abstract
Aims and Objectives:
The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the most important passive stabilizer of the patella. In recurrent lateral patellar dislocations reconstruction of the MPFL with an autologous tendon transplant is a frequently performed surgical procedure that shows a low redislocation rate between 1%-7%. However, a complication rate of up to 26% and a reoperation rate of 4% has also been observed. The question, therefore, arises which parameter determines MPFL reconstruction failure. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify reasons for MPFL reconstruction failure with regard to patients’ complaints leading to reoperation.
Materials and Methods:
Between July 2015 and May 2019 28 patients (M/F 9/19; mean age 27 ± 8 years) with postoperative complaints after MPFL reconstructive surgery had to undergo revision surgery. Preoperative failure analysis included clinical examination (ROM, ReDPAT, J-sign, and Patella-Glide Test) and radiological imaging with regard to anatomical risk factors of patellar instability and MPFL tunnel positioning. Anatomical predisposition was assessed according to Dejour’s classification of trochlear dysplasia, tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance, tibial tuberosity-posterior cruciate ligament distance, patellar height, varus/valgus malalignment and torsional profile.
Results:
Three major reasons for revision surgery were identified: (1) patellar redislocation, (2) limited range of motion (ROM), and (3) anterior knee pain (AKP). Sixteen of the 28 patients (57%) suffered from recurrent patellar dislocation. Severe trochlear dysplasia (type B/D according to Dejour) (44%), valgus deformity (19%), increased patellar height (19%), and misplaced femoral drill channels (31%) could be identified as risk factors for redislocation. An increased TT-TG (>20mm) or TT-PCL (>24mm) distance could not be observed in any patient in this group. Limited ROM with an average maximum flexion ability of about 92 ± 26° was observed in 10 of the 28 patients (36%), of which 9 patients additionally complained of AKP. Misplaced femoral drill channels (80%), severe trochlear dysplasia (type B/D according to Dejour) (20%) and postoperative decreased patellar height (20%) could be identified as risk factors for postoperative limited ROM. Other reasons for postoperative AKP were increased femoral antetorsion (n=1) and retropatellar cartilage damage (n=2) without any loss of ROM.
Conclusion:
Recurrent dislocation of the patella, limited ROM and AKP were identified as most common complications after MPFL reconstruction leading to revision surgery. Failures are mainly due to neglected bony risk factors of patellar instability (trochlear dysplasia, patella alta and valgus deformity) and to misplaced femoral drill channels. Appropriate patient selection and an accurate surgical technique appear mandatory for a good clinical outcome when patellar instability is treated solely with an MPFL reconstruction.