Limits...
Clinical and Functional Outcomes following Primary Repair versus Reconstruction of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament for Recurrent Patellar Instability.

Tompkins M, Kuenze CM, Diduch DR, Miller MD, Milewski MD, Hart JP - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2014)

Bottom Line: Results.In addition, there was no side to side difference in torque generation or surface EMG activation of VL or VMO.Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2450 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA.

ABSTRACT
Background. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) repair or reconstruction. Methods. Fourteen knees that underwent MPFL repair and nine (F5, M4) knees that underwent reconstruction at our institution were evaluated for objective and subjective outcomes. The mean age at operation was 20.1 years for repair and 19.8 years for reconstruction. All patients had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (range: 24-75 months). Patient subjective outcomes were obtained using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Kujala patellofemoral subjective evaluations, as well as Visual Analog (VAS) and Tegner Activity Scales. Bilateral isometric quadriceps strength and vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) and vastus lateralis (VL) surface EMG were measured during maximal isometric quadriceps contractions at 30° and 60° of flexion. Results. There were no redislocations in either group. There was no difference in IKDC (P = 0.16), Kujala (P = 0.43), Tegner (P = 0.12), or VAS (P = 0.05) scores at follow-up. There were no differences between repair and reconstruction in torque generation of the involved side at 30° (P = 0.96) and 60° (P = 0.99). In addition, there was no side to side difference in torque generation or surface EMG activation of VL or VMO. Conclusions. There were minimal differences found between patients undergoing MPFL repair and MPFL reconstruction for the objective and subjective evaluations in this study.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Consort diagram demonstrating patient inclusion and exclusion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590910&req=5

fig1: Consort diagram demonstrating patient inclusion and exclusion.

Mentions: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our institution. The study was initiated by carrying out a broad CPT code search for all MPFL repairs and reconstructions from 2001 to 2009. Each chart retrieved was then reviewed and all patients having a procedure done to the MPFL for recurrent patellar instability were noted. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing MPFL repair or reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability, defined as two or more instability events. In addition, patients were included based on age from 14 to 30 years. Exclusion criteria were MPFL procedures in acute patellar instability and any procedures that did not include intervention with the MPFL. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were then contacted and invited to participate in the study. Twenty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria for MPFL repair, three of whom were bilateral. Fourteen (44%) knees from twelve patients were included in the study. Eleven patients met the inclusion criteria for MPFL reconstruction, one of whom was bilateral. Nine (75%) knees from eight patients were included in the study. The remainder of the eligible patients either declined to participate or we were unsuccessful in obtaining up-to-date contact information for them and they were lost to follow-up (Figure 1).


Clinical and Functional Outcomes following Primary Repair versus Reconstruction of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament for Recurrent Patellar Instability.

Tompkins M, Kuenze CM, Diduch DR, Miller MD, Milewski MD, Hart JP - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2014)

Consort diagram demonstrating patient inclusion and exclusion.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590910&req=5

fig1: Consort diagram demonstrating patient inclusion and exclusion.
Mentions: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our institution. The study was initiated by carrying out a broad CPT code search for all MPFL repairs and reconstructions from 2001 to 2009. Each chart retrieved was then reviewed and all patients having a procedure done to the MPFL for recurrent patellar instability were noted. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing MPFL repair or reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability, defined as two or more instability events. In addition, patients were included based on age from 14 to 30 years. Exclusion criteria were MPFL procedures in acute patellar instability and any procedures that did not include intervention with the MPFL. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were then contacted and invited to participate in the study. Twenty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria for MPFL repair, three of whom were bilateral. Fourteen (44%) knees from twelve patients were included in the study. Eleven patients met the inclusion criteria for MPFL reconstruction, one of whom was bilateral. Nine (75%) knees from eight patients were included in the study. The remainder of the eligible patients either declined to participate or we were unsuccessful in obtaining up-to-date contact information for them and they were lost to follow-up (Figure 1).

Bottom Line: Results.In addition, there was no side to side difference in torque generation or surface EMG activation of VL or VMO.Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2450 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA.

ABSTRACT
Background. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) repair or reconstruction. Methods. Fourteen knees that underwent MPFL repair and nine (F5, M4) knees that underwent reconstruction at our institution were evaluated for objective and subjective outcomes. The mean age at operation was 20.1 years for repair and 19.8 years for reconstruction. All patients had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (range: 24-75 months). Patient subjective outcomes were obtained using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Kujala patellofemoral subjective evaluations, as well as Visual Analog (VAS) and Tegner Activity Scales. Bilateral isometric quadriceps strength and vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) and vastus lateralis (VL) surface EMG were measured during maximal isometric quadriceps contractions at 30° and 60° of flexion. Results. There were no redislocations in either group. There was no difference in IKDC (P = 0.16), Kujala (P = 0.43), Tegner (P = 0.12), or VAS (P = 0.05) scores at follow-up. There were no differences between repair and reconstruction in torque generation of the involved side at 30° (P = 0.96) and 60° (P = 0.99). In addition, there was no side to side difference in torque generation or surface EMG activation of VL or VMO. Conclusions. There were minimal differences found between patients undergoing MPFL repair and MPFL reconstruction for the objective and subjective evaluations in this study.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus