• Luiz Felipe Ambra, Carlos Eduardo Franciozi, Amy Phan, Flavio Faloppa, and Andreas H Gomoll.
• Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 715 - 1o.andar, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, Brazil. felipeambra71@gmail.com.
• Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Mar 1; 29 (3): 793-799.

PurposeTo biomechanically evaluate MPTL reconstruction and compare it with two techniques for MPFL reconstruction in regard to changes in patellofemoral contact pressures and restoration of patellar stability.MethodsThis is an experimental laboratory study in eight human cadaveric knees. None had patellofemoral cartilage lesions or trochlear dysplasia as evaluated by conventional radiographs and MRI examinations. The specimens were secured in a testing apparatus, and the quadriceps was tensioned in line with the femoral shaft. Contact pressures were measured using the TekScan sensor at 30°, 60° and 90°. The sensor was placed in the patellofemoral joint through a proximal approach between femoral shaft and quadriceps tendon to not violate the medial and lateral patellofemoral complex. TekScan data were analysed to determine mean contact pressures on the medial and lateral patellar facets. Patellar lateral displacement was evaluated with the knee positioned at 30° of flexion and 9 N of quadriceps load, then a lateral force of 22 N was applied. The same protocol was used for each condition: native, medial patellofemoral complex lesion, medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R) using gracilis tendon, MPFL-R using quadriceps tendon transfer, and medial patellotibial ligament reconstruction (MPTL-R) using patellar tendon transfer.ResultsNo statistical differences were found for mean and peak contact pressures, medial or lateral, among all three techniques. However, while both techniques of MPFL-R were able to restore the medial restraint, MPTL-R failed to restore resistance to lateral patellar translation to the native state (mean lateralization of the patella [mm]: native: 9.4; lesion: 22; gracilis MPFL-R: 8.1; quadriceps MPFL-R: 11.3; MPTL-R: 23.4 (p < 0.001).ConclusionMPTL-R and both techniques for MPFL-R did not increase patellofemoral contact pressures; however, MPTL-R failed to provide a sufficient restraint against lateral patellar translation lateral translation in 30° of flexion. It, therefore, cannot be recommended as an isolated procedure for the treatment of patellar instability.

41 keywords...

hide…