Loading…

Lateral Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Techniques

Background: The importance of maintaining lateral patellar stabilizing structures has been demonstrated by the presence of iatrogenic medial patellar instability after lateral retinacular release (LRR) procedures. In patients with medial patellar instability, lateral patellofemoral ligament (LPFL) r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of sports medicine 2023-02, Vol.51 (2), p.446-452
Main Authors: Huddleston, Hailey P., Shewman, Elizabeth F., Knapik, Derrick, Yanke, Adam B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: The importance of maintaining lateral patellar stabilizing structures has been demonstrated by the presence of iatrogenic medial patellar instability after lateral retinacular release (LRR) procedures. In patients with medial patellar instability, lateral patellofemoral ligament (LPFL) reconstruction has been clinically shown to restore patellar stability while improving patient-reported outcomes. However, the biomechanics associated with different LPFL reconstruction techniques remain largely unknown. Purpose: To (1) investigate whether LPFL reconstruction restores medial patellar translation compared with the intact state after LRR and (2) evaluate for any biomechanical differences between soft tissue and osseous LPFL reconstruction techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 7 knees were included in the final analysis. The knees were dissected, and the tibia and femur were potted. An eye screw was then placed at the midpoint of the patella perpendicular to the medial surface. A custom jig was constructed to allow for a 1-kg load to be applied to the quadriceps muscle. Medial patellar displacement was investigated at 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion using a tensile testing machine with a 20-N medial force applied to the patella. Medial patellar displacement was assessed in 4 states: intact, LRR, soft tissue LPFL reconstruction (inserted through incisions in the iliotibial band, quadriceps tendon, and patellar tendon), and osseous LPFL reconstruction. Results: The LRR group had significantly greater medial patellar translation compared with the intact group throughout flexion (P < .01 to P = .029). The soft tissue LPFL reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation at 30° (P = .020) and 45° (P = .025) compared with the intact group, with less translation compared with the LRR group at all degrees of knee flexion except for 45° (P = .065). The osseous LPFL reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation compared with the intact group at 30° of flexion (P = .036), with significantly less translation compared with the LRR group from 0° to 30° (P < .01 to P = .013). The soft tissue LPFL reconstruction group (15.94 ± 2.55 mm) demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation at 10° of flexion compared with the osseous LPFL reconstruction group (14.16 ± 2.34 mm) (P = .033). Conclusion: Soft tissue LPFL reconstructi
ISSN:0363-5465
1552-3365
DOI:10.1177/03635465221145017