Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is widely used for treating recurrent lateral patellar instability, with advancements such as artificial tapes and anchor fixation aiming to improve biomechanical stability and recovery outcomes compared with traditional autograft techniques. However, limited research exists on the outcomes of simultaneous bilateral MPFLR.

Hypothesis:

The time to return to sports (RTS) is longer for bilateral MPFLR than for unilateral MPFLR.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients were divided into bilateral and unilateral MPFLR groups. RTS rates, time to RTS, and postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were assessed.

Results:

A total of 45 knees were analyzed, including 21 in the unilateral group and 24 in the bilateral group. Their mean ages were 15.2 ± 1.9 years and 15.2 ± 2.1 years, respectively, with a minimum 2-year follow-up including evaluations at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Both groups demonstrated favorable postoperative KOOS values across all subscales, with no significant differences between them (pain: 92.3 ± 7.9 vs 89.2 ± 10.3; symptoms: 92.3 ± 8.7 vs 87.4 ± 11.9; activities of daily living: 88.9 ± 15.3 vs 94.2 ± 8.5; sports: 98.2 ± 3.2 vs 85.4 ± 15.5; quality of life: 91.6 ± 12.3 vs 81.4 ± 16.9; all P > .05). RTS rates were 92% for the bilateral group and 76% for the unilateral group, whereas the mean times to RTS were 6.1 ± 2.6 and 5.3 ± 2.4 months, respectively, showing no significant differences. Factors preventing RTS included knee pain, loss of interest, and lifestyle changes such as retirement to pursue higher education.

Conclusion:

Bilateral MPFLR achieved comparable functional outcomes, recovery time, and RTS rates to unilateral procedures. This study suggests that bilateral MPFLR with FiberTape and knotless SwiveLock anchors is an effective treatment for young athletes, offering excellent postoperative knee function and a high RTS likelihood. Further prospective studies with larger cohorts are recommended to validate these results and assess long-term outcomes.

Keywords

patellar dislocation medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction FiberTape return to sports SwiveLock

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is widely used to treat recurrent lateral patellar instability.^16,19,27 The MPFL is crucial for stabilizing the patella against lateral displacement, and its dysfunction significantly impairs knee function, especially in active and athletic individuals.¹⁷ Traditional reconstruction techniques, often involving autografts and allografts, have shown favorable outcomes. Allograft tendons avoid donor site morbidity and reduce operative time. However, their use may be associated with a higher risk of graft laxity or failure due to slower biological incorporation compared with autografts.^1,15,29

Advances in surgical techniques have introduced the use of artificial tapes combined with anchor fixation as alternatives to traditional graft-based approaches.^8,25 This technique aims to strengthen initial stability,³⁰ minimize donor site complications, and potentially accelerate functional recovery. However, their clinical efficacy, particularly in restoring symmetrical knee function, remains unknown.

Contralateral patellar dislocation occurs in 5% to 9% of patients after an initial dislocation.^4,5 Patients who underwent bilateral MPFLR returned to sports at a rate of 62% compared with 72% for those who underwent unilateral reconstruction.¹² However, most studies focus on clinical outcomes after unilateral MPFLR and second-stage bilateral MPFLR; studies on simultaneous bilateral MPFLR for bilateral patellar instability are limited.

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of using FiberTape and anchors for MPFLR, comparing the outcomes between bilateral and unilateral cases. We aimed to investigate differences in postoperative functional outcomes and return to sports (RTS) rates. We hypothesized that the time to RTS is longer for bilateral MPFLR than for unilateral MPFLR.

Methods

Participants

This study was a retrospective cohort analysis aimed at evaluating the outcomes of MPFLR using artificial tapes and anchor systems. We identified 147 patients who underwent MPFLR between December 2016 and December 2022 from the institutional database. Patients who were not engaged in any sports activities before surgery were excluded, as this study focused on postoperative RTS. Of the 147 cases, we excluded 33 patients who did not engage in any sports activities, 23 aged >30 years, 16 without computed tomography (CT) data, and 4 without KOOS data. During follow-up, we excluded 1 patient who developed a surgical site infection (bilateral case). Overall, we included 21 patients in the unilateral group (those who underwent unilateral MPFLR) and 24 in the bilateral group (those who underwent bilateral simultaneous MPFLR) (Figure 1). Institutional review board approval was obtained before data collection. Preoperative demographics (age, sex, and body mass index [BMI]) were retrospectively collected from medical records.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of included patients. KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; MPFLR, medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction.

Surgical Management

MPFLR was performed for patients who had experienced at least 2 episodes of recurrent patellar dislocation, confirmed through clinical history, physical examination, and imaging. All patients had previously received nonoperative treatments such as physical therapy and bracing but continued to experience symptoms of instability. All patients in the bilateral group had symptomatic and recurrent patellar dislocations in both knees. In cases of bilateral instability, the decision to perform unilateral or simultaneous bilateral MPFLR was based on the severity and frequency of symptoms on each side and was made through shared decision-making between the patient and the surgeons. Contraindications for this procedure included high-grade trochlear dysplasia (Dejour type D), severe patellofemoral osteochondral damage, and skeletal immaturity. Skeletal maturity was assessed using plain radiographs by confirming the closure of the distal femoral and proximal tibial growth plates. All surgical procedures were performed by 1 of 2 senior orthopaedic surgeons (Y.K., Y.I.). MPFLR was performed using FiberTape (Arthrex) and SwiveLock (Arthrex) following established protocols.⁸ Briefly, with the knee flexed to 90°, a 2- to 3-cm longitudinal incision was made along the medial patellar border. The medial retinaculum (first layer) was incised, and a subcutaneous tunnel was created to access the femoral side. Two blind tunnels were drilled in the medial patellar edge—1 proximal near the quadriceps insertion and 1 in the midsection—where 3.5-mm SwiveLock anchors were placed to secure the FiberTape. For femoral fixation, a 2.4-mm Kirschner wire was inserted at the Schöttle point using imaging guidance and an MPFL guide (JBM0200-01/2; BEAR Medic Corp).¹⁴ After confirming the isometry of the FiberTape and patellar tracking through full knee motion, the FiberTape was secured at 90° of flexion with a 4.75-mm SwiveLock anchor. Based on our previous study, it was recommended that the knee flexion angle for suture fixation could be 90° to prevent excessive contact pressure on the patellofemoral joint after MPFLR.²³ To avoid overtensioning, the FiberTape was slightly loosened within a range that prevented patellar dislocation before final fixation. A final arthroscopy examination was performed to confirm proper patellar tracking after fixation.

Postoperative rehabilitation focused on early range of motion. Muscle activation exercises, including patellar setting and straight-leg raises, were started immediately. Weightbearing activities were introduced based on pain tolerance, with jogging permitted approximately 2 months after surgery. No knee braces or other orthotic devices were used postoperatively. All patients followed the same rehabilitation protocol, with no differences between the 2 groups. RTS clearance was determined for each patient through consultations between the surgeon and the rehabilitation team. No standardized objective criteria for RTS, such as limb symmetry testing, were applied.

Alignment Parameters

Preoperative imaging assessment included weightbearing anterior-posterior views and Laurin views. The sulcus and patellar tilt angles were measured on Laurin views with the knee flexed at 30°.⁶ Patellar height was assessed using the Caton-Deschamps index on lateral radiographs.¹⁸

Femoral torsion (FT) and tibial torsion (TT) were measured using preoperative CT scans. FT was defined as the angle between a line drawn through the femoral head and neck and a line tangent to the posterior femoral condyles.²⁸ TT was measured as the angle formed between a line tangent to the back edge of the tibial plateau and a line connecting the centers of the medial and lateral malleoli.²²

The tibial tubercle–trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance was calculated following established methods. The deepest point of the TG was identified on axial CT slices, and its center point was marked. The most prominent point of the tibial tuberosity was also identified and marked.¹¹ Perpendicular reference lines were drawn from these points to a baseline along the posterior femoral condyles. The TT-TG distance was calculated as the separation between the 2 points.

Measurements were conducted using Picture Archiving and Communication System software (ShadeQuest/ViewR Version 1.24.15; Fujifilm Medical Co Ltd), with an accuracy of 0.01° and length accuracy of 0.01 mm. Alignment parameters were analyzed by 2 trained surgeons (K.I., E.S.) with >8 years of experience.

Clinical Outcomes

All patients were followed for a minimum of 24 months postoperatively. Follow-up assessments were performed by the operating surgeon at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The incidences of redislocation and subluxation were evaluated during follow-up. Postoperative outcomes at the final follow-up were assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which includes 5 subscales: pain, symptoms, quality of life, sports, and activities of daily living.³

Clinical outcomes were evaluated during routine outpatient visits. Patients were asked standardized questions regarding knee stability, pain, and ability to return to preinjury levels of play. Level of play was determined based on patient self-report and categorized as return to the same or lower level or no participation in sport.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (Version 29.0; IBM). Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, whereas categorical data are reported as frequency and percentage. The normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables, such as time to RTS, KOOS subscale values, and alignment parameters, owing to nonnormal distribution. Categorical variables, including RTS rates and levels of sports participation, were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher exact test depending on sample size. Statistical significance for all analyses was set at a P value <.05.

Intrarater reliability, expressed as the interclass correlation coefficient (2.1), was 0.821 (95% CI, 0.539-0.818; P < .001) for FT, 0.793 (95% CI, 0.492-0.700; P < .001) for TT, and 0.862 (95% CI, 0.391-0.791; P < .001) for TT-TG.

Results

The mean age was 15.2 ± 2.0 years (range, 11-20 years), and the mean BMI was 23.3 ± 3.9 kg/m², with no significant differences observed between groups (P = .595 and P = .619, respectively). No significant differences were observed for alignment parameters (Table 1).

Table 1

Patient Demographic Data and Alignment Parameters ^a

	Unilateral	Bilateral	P Value	Total
No. of patients	21	24		45
Age, y	15.2 ± 1.9	15.2 ± 2.1	.595	15.2 ± 2.0
BMI, kg/m²	23.8 ± 4.8	23.1 ± 3.6	.619	23.3 ± 3.9
Female, n (%)	8 (38)	15 (63)	.106	23 (51)
Femoral torsion, deg	17.4 ± 9.5	21.6 ± 9.1	.116	20.3 ± 9.3
Tibial torsion, deg	21.4 ± 7.0	19.4 ± 6.6	.468	20.0 ± 9.3
TT-TG distance, mm	20.4 ± 2.7	20.6 ± 3.1	.925	20.5 ± 3.0
CD index	1.2 ± 0.2	1.2 ± 0.1	.909	1.2 ± 0.2
Sulcus angle, deg	142.1 ± 7.8	142.7 ± 7.2	.872	142.5 ± 7.3
Tilting angle, deg	18.8 ± 9.3	20.8 ± 9.7	.431	20.3 ± 9.6
Hip-knee-ankle angle, deg	1.2 ± 3.2	0.8 ± 3.7	.415	1.1 ± 3.3
Primary sports, n
Basketball	3	5		8
Tennis	2	4		6
Badminton	2	4		6
Baseball/Softball	4	1		5
Volleyball	3	1		4
Table tennis	1	2		3
Soccer	1	2		3
Track and field	0	2		2
Kendo	1	1		2
Judo	1	1		2
Handball	0	1		1
Fencing	1	0		1
Japanese archery	1	0		1
Karate	1	0		1

Data are shown as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. BMI, body mass index; CD, Caton-Deschamps; TT-TG, tibial tubercle–trochlear groove.

During the minimum 24-month follow-up period, no cases of postoperative patellar redislocation or symptomatic subluxation were observed in either unilateral or bilateral MPFLR groups. Both groups demonstrated favorable postoperative outcomes with high KOOS values. KOOS subscale values are summarized in Table 2. There were no statistically significant differences between the unilateral and bilateral groups across any subscale.

Table 2

Comparison Between Preoperative and Postoperative Outcomes ^a

KOOS Subscale	Postoperative		P Value
	Unilateral	Bilateral
Pain	92.3 ± 7.9	89.2 ± 10.3	.382
Symptoms	92.3 ± 8.7	87.4 ± 11.9	.721
Activities of daily living	88.9 ± 15.3	94.2 ± 8.5	.454
Sports	98.2 ± 3.2	85.4 ± 15.5	.635
Quality of life	91.6 ± 12.3	81.4 ± 16.9	.683

Data are shown as mean ± SD. KOOS subscales were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

As shown in Table 3, there were no statistically significant differences in rates of RTS or in the time to return between the unilateral and bilateral groups.

Table 3

Comparison of RTS After Unilateral and Bilateral Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction ^a

	Unilateral (n = 21)	Bilateral (n = 24)	P Value
RTS, n (%)	16 (76)	22 (92)	.297
Level of sports, n
Lower	3	5	.431
Same	13	17	.431
Time to return, mo, mean ± SD	5.3 ± 2.4	6.1 ± 2.6	.237

Measurements between the 2 groups were compared using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RTS, return to sports.

Reasons for not returning to sports included knee pain in 1 patient from each group, loss of interest in 1 patient in the unilateral group, and retirement to pursue higher education in 3 patients in the unilateral group and 1 patient in the bilateral group (Table 4).

Table 4

Reasons for Not Returning to Sports After Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction ^a

Reason	Unilateral	Bilateral
Knee pain	1	1
Long recovery	0	0
Lost interest	1	0
Retired due to higher education	3	1

Data are shown as number of patients.

Discussion

Unilateral and bilateral MPFLR using FiberTape and SwiveLock anchors yielded excellent postoperative outcomes. Bilateral MPFLR was associated with a marginally longer time to RTS and lower KOOS values in certain subscales; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, >90% of bilateral cases achieved RTS. These findings suggested that bilateral MPFLR is a viable option for young athletes, with outcomes comparable to those of unilateral reconstruction.

MPFLR is an effective treatment for patellar instability with a high RTS rate.²⁶ Investigations on the rate of RTS after MPFLR provide valuable insights into patient outcomes and influencing factors. A meta-analysis of 23 studies with 786 patients reported that approximately 92.8% of patients returned to sport within a mean of 6.7 months, with 71.3% achieving preinjury sports level or higher.⁹ RTS rates were marginally lower for patients who underwent MPFLR combined with osteotomy (86.9%) compared with those for patients who underwent MPFLR only (95.4%). Notably, fear of reinjury was the most common reason for patients returning at a lower play level, affecting 39.7% of participants.

Unilateral MPFLR has been reported to yield higher RTS rates than bilateral MPFLR.²⁰ Bilateral MPFLR is associated with prolonged recovery and compounded psychological barriers, such as fear of reinjury and lack of confidence, reducing RTS rates.¹² Liu et al¹³ studied RTS outcomes in 91 patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral MPFLR without additional osteotomy. It was found that 94.5% of patients returned to sports, with 74% regaining their preoperative levels of play. However, the study did not include a subgroup analysis comparing unilateral and bilateral MPFLR outcomes. Li et al¹² compared RTS rates between bilateral and unilateral MPFLR cohorts with mean ages of 25 and 22 years, respectively. The RTS rates were 62% for bilateral MPFLR and 72% for unilateral MPFLR, with significant differences. Conversely, Klueh et al⁹ reported a significantly lower RTS rate in patients who underwent bilateral MPFLR than in those who underwent unilateral MPFLR (69% vs 94%; P = .03). Among those who returned to sports, no significant difference was observed in the postoperative level of play achieved. Specifically, 81% of the bilateral group reached the same or a higher level of play compared with 67% in the unilateral group. These discrepancies are likely due to the difference in surgical procedures and activity levels. In the present study, the RTS rate in the bilateral group was not significantly different from that in the unilateral group, suggesting that simultaneous bilateral MPFLR may be a reasonable treatment option for patients evaluated with symptomatic instability in both knees. Therefore, when both knees fulfill the surgical indication criteria and the patient is motivated, simultaneous bilateral MPFLR may offer a practical and efficient approach without compromising short-term RTS outcomes. Furthermore, our study showed a more favorable RTS rate of 92%, in comparison with previous studies.^9,12,24 Regarding patients who retired to pursue higher education, the adjusted RTS rates were 19 of 21 (90%) in the unilateral group and 23 of 24 (96%) in the bilateral group. This discrepancy between our study and previous studies may be attributed to differences in patient selection (ie, young athletes), consistent use of FiberTape and anchor fixation providing greater initial stability, and no donor site morbidity. These factors may collectively enhance early recovery and facilitate successful RTS.

Although MPFLR effectively treats recurrent patellar instability with high RTS rates,²¹ some patients are unable to return to their preinjury play level. Fear of reinjury and knee instability often prevent RTS after surgery for knee injury.^7,10 Bony malalignment, trochlear dysplasia, and patella alta contraindicate isolated MPFLR.^2,32 Xu et al³¹ reported that patients returning to sports before 9 months after surgery exhibit a high incidence of postoperative anterior knee pain, suggesting that returning too early may negatively affect postoperative outcomes. These findings suggested that careful consideration of RTS timing is crucial for optimal outcomes after MPFLR.

This study has some limitations. First, it was a retrospective study, with a relatively small sample size and no long-term data. Second, the absence of a standardized definition of RTS complicates cross-study comparisons, as some include only organized sports, whereas others consider general athletic activities. Third, there is the lack of a quantitative method for determining graft tension during MPFLR. Although we followed a standardized protocol based on intraoperative assessment of isometry and patellar tracking, final tensioning was performed subjectively by the surgeon. The inability to precisely quantify graft tension may introduce variability in postoperative outcomes. Fourth, because of the retrospective design of the study, we were unable to perform a priori sample size calculation. The limited sample size may reduce the ability to detect subtle differences between groups. Finally, we did not assess patella-specific outcome scores such as the Kujala score. Although we used the KOOS, which includes sports and symptoms subscales relevant to patellofemoral function, the addition of a validated patella- and femur-specific measure could have enhanced the clinical relevance of our findings.

Conclusion

Simultaneous bilateral MPFLR provided favorable clinical outcomes with high RTS rates. Patients with bilateral symptoms did not demonstrate prolonged time to return compared with patients in the unilateral group, suggesting that simultaneous bilateral MPFLR may be considered as a reasonable option in appropriately selected patients

Footnotes

Final revision submitted October 18, 2025; accepted October 29, 2025.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Hirosaki University Hospital (No. 2014-229).

ORCID iDs

Kyota Ishibashi

Eiji Sasaki

Yuka Kimura

References

Aliberti

Kraeutler

Miskimin

Scillia

Belk

Mulcahey

MK.

Autograft versus allograft for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(10):23259671211046639. doi:10.1177/23259671211046639

Baer

Macalena

JA.

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: patient selection and perspectives. Orthop Res Rev. 2017;9:83-91. doi:10.2147/ORR.S118672

Bekkers

de Windt

Raijmakers

Dhert

Saris

DB.

Validation of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17(11):1434-1439. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019

Chen

Liu

, et al. Prediction of subsequent contralateral patellar dislocation after first-time dislocation based on patellofemoral morphologies. J Clin Med. 2022;12(1):180. doi:10.3390/jcm12010180

Christensen

Sanders

Pareek

Mohan

Dahm

Krych

AJ.

Risk factors and time to recurrent ipsilateral and contralateral patellar dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(9);2105-2110. doi:10.1177/0363546517704178

Haim

Yaniv

Dekel

Amir

Patellofemoral pain syndrome: validity of clinical and radiological features. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;451:223-228. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000229284.45485.6

Hurley

Markus

Mannino

, et al. Patients unable to return to play following medial patellofemoral ligament reconstructions demonstrate poor psychological readiness. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(11):3834-3838. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06440-y

Ishibashi

Kimura

Sasaki

Yamamoto

Tsuda

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using FiberTape and knotless SwiveLock anchors. Arthrosc Tech. 2020;9(8);e1197-e1202. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2020.04.020

Klueh

Swany

Troost

Crawford

EA.

Return to sports rates in pediatric patients after bilateral versus unilateral medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(6):1527-1534. doi:10.1177/03635465241240154

10.

Kvist

Sporrstedt

Good

Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(5):393-397. doi:10.1007/s00167-004-0591-8

11.

Garra

Eskenazi

, et al. Patients who undergo tibial tubercle anteromedialization with medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction demonstrate similar rates of return to sport compared to isolated MPFL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024;32(2):371-380. doi:10.1002/ksa.12051

12.

Triana

Lott

, et al. Patients who undergo bilateral medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction return to sport at a similar rate as those that undergo unilateral reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(10):4195-4203. doi:10.1007/s00167-023-07462-4

13.

Liu

Brady

Kalbian

, et al. Clinical outcomes after isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for patellar instability among patients with trochlear dysplasia. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(4):883-889. doi:10.1177/0363546517745625

14.

Migliorini

Maffulli

Bell

Betsch

Outcomes, return to sport, and failures of MPFL reconstruction using autografts in children and adolescents with recurrent patellofemoral instability: a systematic review. Children (Basel). 2022;9(12):1892. doi:10.3390/children9121892

15.

Nardin

Savá

Calvet

Mercier

Barck

Aparicio

JL.

Patellar dislocation: osteochondral graft of patella and medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(12 suppl 5):2325967118S00182. doi:10.1177/2325967118s00182

16.

Nomura

Horiuchi

Kihara

A mid-term follow-up of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using an artificial ligament for recurrent patellar dislocation. Knee. 2000;7(4):211-215. doi:10.1016/S0968-0160(00)00072-7

17.

Ostermeier

Holst

Hurschler

Windhagen

Stukenborg-Colsman

Dynamic measurement of patellofemoral kinematics and contact pressure after lateral retinacular release: an in vitro study. Knee Surg Sporst Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(5):547-554. doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0261-0

18.

Pandini

Pironti

Maggioni

, et al. Is Caton–Deschamps Index reliable and reproducible in preoperative assessment of patellar height for patellar instability surgery? Appl Sci. 2022;12(10):5251. doi:10.3390/app12105251

19.

Papp

Cosgarea

AJ.

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability. Tech Knee Surg. 2009;8(3):187-193. doi:10.1097/BTK.0b013e3181a7bd82

20.

Parikh

Nathan

Wall

Eismann

EA.

Complications of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in young patients. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(5):1030-1038. doi:10.1177/0363546513482085

21.

Platt

Bowers

Magnuson

, et al. Return to sport after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(1):282-291. doi:10.1177/0363546521990004

22.

Qiao

Zhang

, et al. Correlation of tibial torsion with lower limb alignment and femoral anteversion in patients with patellar instability. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022;10(12):23259671221141484. doi:10.1177/23259671221141484

23.

Sakamoto

Sasaki

Kimura

Yamamoto

Tsuda

Ishibashi

Patellofemoral contact pressure for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using suture tape varies with the knee flexion angle: a biomechanical evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(5):1390-1395. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.12.027

24.

Saper

Fantozzi

Bompadre

Racicot

Schmale

GA.

Return-to-sport testing after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(3):1-7. doi:10.1177/2325967119828953

25.

Sasaki

Kimura

Sasaki

Yamamoto

Tsuda

Ishibashi

Clinical outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using FiberTape and knotless SwiveLock anchors. Knee. 2022;37:71-79. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2022.05.011

26.

Schneider

Grawe

Magnussen

, et al. Outcomes after isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for the treatment of recurrent lateral patellar dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2993-3005. doi:10.1177/0363546515624673

27.

Schottle

Romero

Schmeling

Weiler

Technical note: anatomical reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament using a free gracilis autograft. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128(5):479-484. doi:10.1007/s00402-007-0300-4

28.

Seitlinger

Moroder

Scheurecker

Hofmann

Grelsamer

RP.

The contribution of different femur segments to overall femoral torsion. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1796-1800. doi:10.1177/0363546516639945

29.

Sezer

Armağan

Kanar

Eren

OT.

A novel medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction technique; preliminary clinical results. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(2):2325967117S00077. doi:10.1177/2325967117S00077

30.

Tsushima

Tsukada

Sasaki

, et al. Biomechanical analysis of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: FiberTape® with knotless anchors versus a semitendinosus tendon autograft with soft anchors. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(4):663-667. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.11.018

31.

Zhao

Kang

Wang

Returning to pre-injury level of sports before 9 months after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction increases the incidence of anterior knee pain in young patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025;33(3)837-845. doi:10.1002/ksa.12411

32.

Yeung

Leblanc

Ayeni

, et al. Indications for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J Knee Surg. 2016;29(7):543-554. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1564730

Comparative Outcomes of Return to Sports After Bilateral Versus Unilateral Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction With FiberTape and Knotless SwiveLock Anchors in Young Athletes

Abstract

Background:

Hypothesis:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Participants

Surgical Management

Alignment Parameters

Clinical Outcomes

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

References