Patellar Fixation With Suspensory Fixation Device in Single-Tunnel Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

Double-Tunnel Technique Was Similar to Single-Tunnel Technique in Clinical, Imaging and Functional Outcomes for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical, functional, and imaging outcomes of single-tunnel (ST) and double-tunnel (DT) techniques for medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients with recurrent patellar instability were randomly divided into 2 groups, receiving either ST or DT MPFL reconstruction. Lateral reticulum release (LRR) and tibial tuberosity (TT) transfer were performed as combined procedures when necessary. Preoperative and postoperative clinical characteristics (symptoms and episodes of redislocation), functional outcomes (Kujala, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, and KOOS score), and radiological measurements (congruence angle, patellar tilt angle, lateral patellar angle, and lateral patellar translation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The analysis included data from 90 patients with 48 patients in the ST group and 42 patients in the DT group. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 37.8 (range: 27-50) months in the ST group and 38.6 (range: 25-53) months in the DT group. Forty-three patients in the ST group and 40 patients in the DT group received combined TT transfer, and all patients underwent LRR. At the latest follow-up, 1 patient in ST group experienced redislocation, while no patient in the DT group sustained clinical failure (P = .347). Imaging measurements decreased significantly to the normal range postoperatively. No significant difference was noted between the postoperative radiological results of the 2 groups. All clinical scores significantly improved postoperatively, and no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups except for the higher Lysholm score (P = .031), KOOS symptoms score (P = .021) and KOOS knee-related quality of life score (P = .043) in the DT group.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques could equally mitigate the patellar lateral translation or redislocation. Our results demonstrate several significant differences in functional outcomes that favored DT MPFL reconstruction but no difference in clinical failure rates and radiological results between ST and DT MPFL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized clinical trial.

Editorial Commentary: Two Fixation Points Are Better for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction-To Minimize Complications, Bone Tunnels Should Be Avoided

Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction has gained in popularity over the past 15 years, with most studies showing a clear advantage over techniques such as MPFL repair or medial imbrication for the treatment of patellar instability. A debate continues as to the type of fixation on the patella, tunnel versus suture anchor, as well as the number of fixation points. In fact, some senior patellofemoral surgeons have opted away from patellar bony fixation altogether to avoid complications associated with patellar fixation such as fracture or penetration of the articular cartilage. In my practice, I prefer to use 2 all-suture suture anchors for patellar fixation as there is minimal risk of fracture or significant cartilage damage compared with tunnel drilling or placement of larger suture anchors. The graft choice for MPFL reconstruction has been shown to be relatively unimportant, and for this reason, I typically choose gracilis allograft to avoid graft-site morbidity and hamstring weakness.