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

Patellar tunnels are prepared using a drill bit.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590910&req=5

fig4: Patellar tunnels are prepared using a drill bit.

Mentions: The reconstruction technique was completed with the use of hamstring autograft. Once the autograft was harvested, the origin and insertion of the MPFL were identified on the patella and femur. On the patellar side, two drill holes were made through which the ends of the autograft tendon were passed. The ends were then secured either with tenodesis screws or by tying them over one another on the lateral side of the patella. (Figure 4) The autograft tendon was then directed through a drill hole in the femur, tensioned, and secured with a tenodesis screw or fixed with a post and spiked washer (2 patients) on the medial aspect of the femur, at the isometric point [40–42].


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)

Patellar tunnels are prepared using a drill bit.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig4: Patellar tunnels are prepared using a drill bit.
Mentions: The reconstruction technique was completed with the use of hamstring autograft. Once the autograft was harvested, the origin and insertion of the MPFL were identified on the patella and femur. On the patellar side, two drill holes were made through which the ends of the autograft tendon were passed. The ends were then secured either with tenodesis screws or by tying them over one another on the lateral side of the patella. (Figure 4) The autograft tendon was then directed through a drill hole in the femur, tensioned, and secured with a tenodesis screw or fixed with a post and spiked washer (2 patients) on the medial aspect of the femur, at the isometric point [40–42].

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