Skip to main content

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability is safe and effective

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction techniques in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability, focusing on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), redislocation rate, and complications. The hypothesis was that hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability is safe and effective.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library databases were accessed in October 2021. All the clinical studies investigating the efficacy and feasibility of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction were screened for inclusion. Only studies with a minimum 24-month follow-up were considered eligible. Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale improvement and redislocation rate after surgical treatment were evaluated as primary outcomes. The rate of postoperative complications was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The quality of the methodological assessment was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score.

Results

Eight studies were included in the present systematic review. The quality of the methodological assessment was moderate. Short- to long-term improvement of Kujala score was observed in all included studies. Mean score improvement ranged from + 13.2/100 to + 54/100, with mean postoperative scores ranging from 82/100 to 94/100. Patellar redislocation was observed in 8.33% (8 of 96) patients.

Conclusion

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction with or without associated soft-tissue or bony realignment procedures provided reliable clinical improvements and was associated with a low rate of redislocation in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability. Advantages such as safety, femoral physis preservation, and comparable complication profiles with implant-based techniques endorse its implementation. Orthopedic surgeons in cost-sensitive environments may also benefit their patients with lower costs, no need for implants, lack of implant-related complications, or surgery for implant removal.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

Introduction

Patellar dislocation is the most common injury of the patellofemoral joint in young patients [1,2,3], with a high annual incidence at 147.7 per 100,000 in patients between 14 and 18 years, and recurrence rates reaching up to 70% after a primary dislocation [1, 2, 4,5,6]. Patients report giving away, joint effusion, anterior knee pain, limited range of motion, restricted sports activities participation and are at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis [2, 7]. The etiology of recurrent patellar dislocation is complex [1, 3, 8]. Trochlear or patellar dysplasia, patella alta, genu valgus or recurvatum, and increased femoral anteversion, and lateral tibial torsion have all been associated with an increased risk of patellofemoral dislocation [3, 9]. Therefore, several techniques, including proximal and distal realignment procedures, ligament reconstruction, or a combination of them, have been proposed for its management [2].

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary patellar restraint between 0° and 30° of knee flexion [3, 10,11,12]. Its anatomic reconstruction has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes, and it is considered a milestone in the management of recurrent patellofemoral instability [2, 3, 10, 13, 14]. Although many MPFL reconstruction techniques have been described, the ideal graft or fixation method are still debated [8, 15, 16]. Hardware-free fixation techniques, also called implantless, soft tissue, elastic, or dynamic fixation techniques, were initially developed to preserve the distal femoral physis in skeletally immature patients [17,18,19,20,21]. However, given their potential advantages, such as no implant-related costs, no need for hardware removal, and no implant-related complications, they are becoming increasingly popular [13, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. These advantages are particularly relevant in cost-sensitive populations [29, 30].

This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction techniques in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability. The focus was on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), redislocation rate, and complications. The hypothesis was that hardware-free MPFL reconstruction with or without associated soft-tissue or bony realignment procedures is safe and effective in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability.

Material and methods

Search strategy

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [31]. Two independent reviewers (TMF, GK) searched PubMed, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library databases in October 2021. The following terms, "medial patellofemoral ligament", "MPFL", "reconstruction", and "outcomes", were used alone and in combination with Boolean operators AND and OR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established before the search and were used to identify potentially eligible studies by title and abstract screening. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a third author (EP). The bibliographies of the included studies were also screened to identify additional studies.

Eligibility criteria

All the clinical studies which investigated the efficacy and feasibility of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction were screened for inclusion. Given the linguistic abilities of the authors, only studies in English or Spanish were considered. Only studies with a minimum 24-month follow-up were considered eligible. Only studies that used the Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale as PROM. Reviews, commentaries, editorials, and opinions were excluded as were biomechanic and animal studies. Studies that did not properly describe the surgical procedure were also excluded. Missing data on the outcomes of interests warranted the exclusion from the present study.

Data extraction

Two independent investigators (TMF, GK) reviewed the resulting articles and performed data extraction. For each included study, the following data were extracted: author, year, study design, patients demographic at baseline, length of the follow-up, surgical technique. Data concerning the Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale at baseline and at last follow-up were retrieved. The rate of complications was also collected.

Outcomes of interest

The improvement in the Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale and redislocation rate after surgical treatment were evaluated as primary outcomes. The Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale is a 0–100 thirteen-question patient-reported outcome assessment tool widely used to evaluate the outcomes following surgical procedures in patients with patellofemoral instability [7]. A score of 95 points or greater was considered excellent, 94 to 85 as good, 84 to 65 as fair, and 64 or less as poor [32]. The rate of postoperative complications was evaluated as a secondary outcome.

Methodological quality assessment

The quality of the methodological assessment was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS) (Table 1) [38].

Table 1 Modified Coleman methodology scores of the included studies

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V.19 and Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft®, USA). Continuous data were presented as mean values, standard deviations. Dichotomic data were presented as percentages. The t-test was used for continuous data, and the chi-square test for binary variables. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

The initial literature search yielded 932 potentially relevant records after the removal of duplicates (N = 411). Titles and abstracts were independently screened, and 27 articles were selected for full-text evaluation. Seven studies were excluded because of insufficient follow-up [19, 39,40,41,42,43,44] and seven more because Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale was not used or data were insufficient to evaluate post-surgical improvement [45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Finally, eight studies met the predetermined eligibility criteria, and no additional studies were included after citation screening in the systematic review (Fig. 1). There were six case series [27, 33,34,35,36,37], one multicenter longitudinal prospective comparative study [21], and one randomized controlled trial [18].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow-chart of the literature search

The descriptions of diagnosis and surgical techniques were consistent and accurate in most studies. The rehabilitation process was poorly described in some studies. All studies adequately reported outcome measures, the timing of outcome assessment, and the unbiased selection criteria of the subjects involved. Of the mCMS items, 'study size' and 'mean follow-up' scored the lowest because five out of eight studies had included less than 30 patients [18, 21, 27, 36, 37], and the follow-up was within 12–36 months in six of them [18, 21, 27, 33, 34, 37]. Furthermore, among these studies, six were case series [27, 33,34,35,36,37]. The lack of general health measures and the procedures for outcomes assessment were the most important limitations. It was unclear whether investigators were independent of surgeons, and completion of assessment by patients with minimal investigator assistance was not explicit in most studies. Recruitment rate was lower than 90% in five studies [18, 27, 33, 36, 37]. Concluding, the average mCMS value was 62.88 (range 57–70), demonstrating moderate methodological quality.

Narrative analysis of the collected data was conducted and summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Outcomes of hardware-free medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction techniques

Recurrent patellar dislocation was the main indication for hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in all the included studies [18, 21, 27, 33,34,35,36,37]. Three studies reported data from patients with physiological limb alignment and bone morphology [21, 33, 37]. Patients with increased tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance were included in three studies [18, 35], patella alta in two [35, 36], severe trochlear dysplasia in one [18], increased Q angle in one [34], concomitant general ligament laxity in two studies [27, 34]. Double bundle MPFL reconstruction using a free autograft [18, 21, 35, 36] was the most common technique, followed by single-bundle MPFL reconstruction with pedicled autograft [27, 34], and combined MPFL and MPTL reconstruction with pedicled autograft [33, 37]. Concomitant procedures included debridement [18, 33], microfractures [33], fixation of osteochondral lesions [36], osteochondral transplantation [36], distal realignment procedures [18, 34, 35], Insall's proximal realignment procedure [36], medial retinaculum plication [27], and lateral retinacular release [34].

The preferred method for patellar graft fixation was bone tunnels [18, 21, 33,34,35,36,37], except for Abouelsoud et al. [27] technique, in which the patellar tendon quadriceps attachment was preserved as a pedicled autograft. The most commonly used method for femoral fixation was looping the tendon graft around the adductor magnus tendon [18, 21, 33, 35]. Femoral fixation was also achieved by (1) suturing the graft to the periosteum and bone in the MPFL femoral footprint and the adductor magnus tendon [27], (2) a bone tunnel in the MPFL footprint [37], (3) looping it through a slit in the medial collateral ligament [36], and (4) preserving the adductor magnus tendon distal attachment when prepared as a pedicled autograft [34]. In combined MPFL and MPTL reconstruction, a gracilis tendon pedicled autograft was prepared to preserve its distal attachment [33, 37]. Graft tensioning and fixation at 30° of knee flexion was the favored method [18, 27, 34, 36], followed by 5–10 mm manual patellar lateralization [33], or a combination of both [21, 35, 37].

The gracilis tendon was the most commonly used autograft in the included studies [18, 21, 33, 35], followed by semitendinosus tendon [36, 37], quadriceps tendon [27], and adductor magnus tendon [34].

Short- to long-term improvement of Kujala score was observed in all included studies comprising patients from both sexes with mean ages ranging from 11.5 to 26.5 years [18, 21, 27, 33,34,35,36,37]. Mean score improvement ranged from + 13.2/100 to + 54/100, with mean postoperative scores ranging from 82/100 to 94/100. The final outcome was graded as good in seven studies [18, 21, 27, 34,35,36,37] and fair in one [33]. In two comparative studies, hardware-free MPFL reconstruction showed no statistical difference in Kujala score compared to femoral fixation using interference screws [18] or suture anchors [21]. Similarly, there were no statistical differences when comparing Kujala scores in patients with or without osteochondral injuries [33]. After surgery, patellar redislocation was observed in three of eight included studies [21, 33, 34]. Malecki et al. [34] reported four cases (10.26%), Maffulli et al. [33] three cases (8.82%), and Marot et al. [21] only one case (3.45%). All but one redislocations occurred during sports activities.

A positive apprehension test [34,35,36,37] and flexion deficit [27, 35,36,37] were the most commonly reported complications, ranging respectively from 2.86 to 25% and 3.4 to 6.25% overall. Other complications included osteoarthritis [33, 36], sensation of joint instability [18, 21], patella drill hole-related problems [33], hypoesthesia [33], anterior knee pain [33], pain at the medial femoral condyle [18], and hypertrophic wound scarring [35].

Discussion

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction with or without associated soft-tissue or bony realignment procedures provided short- to long-term improvement and a low redislocation rate in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability, as initially hypothesized.

The number of bundles, type of fixation, and graft tensioning for MPFL reconstruction in patients with patellofemoral instability is still debated [2, 8, 10, 37, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Thus, several variations and combinations of procedures have been described. Double-bundle MPFL reconstruction using a free gracilis autograft was the preferred method. Likewise, the most frequently implemented hardware-free fixation methods were patellar bone tunnels and looping the autograft around the adductor magnus tendon at 30° of knee flexion.

At least half of the world’s population lives in poverty and lacks access to quality essential health services [30]. Thus, investigations aiming to reduce the surgical-related burden represent a significant breakthrough for developing countries. Zhang et al. [59] exposed the contrasting cost differences of a pair of suture anchors and three high-strength sutures (US$800 vs. US$100, respectively) when comparing two different patellar fixation techniques. In fact, various authors have remarked on the high costs of suture anchors and interference screws [25, 26, 29]. Biomechanical studies have found no significant differences among fixation methods in MPFL reconstruction, and all provide higher failure loads than the native ligament [24, 60, 61]. Therefore, populations at economic disadvantage may benefit from hardware-free fixation techniques, being safe [18, 35, 37], cost-effective [3, 21, 35, 41, 42, 47, 59, 62]. Also, an effective hardware-free MPFL reconstruction can be performed in skeletally immature patients [3, 21, 27, 35, 36, 41, 42] and avoids implant-related complications or further surgery for implant removal [41, 42, 44].

Graft femoral fixation in hardware-free techniques is a debated technical point. Implant-based fixation techniques have shown similar pullout strength to hardware-free fixation techniques but higher stiffness [18, 60]. However, it has been suggested that the elastic behavior and lower stiffness of hardware-free fixation can result in a more compliant graft physiometry, lowering the risk of joint overconstrain and early-onset osteoarthritis [3, 18, 19, 21, 41, 46, 47]. Additionally, many hardware-free fixation techniques do not require intraoperative fluoroscopy, lowering associated costs and radiation exposure [21, 42]. It is still unknown whether higher fixation stiffness results in clinically relevant improvement or higher expenses.

In a recent systematic review, the clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability undergoing MPFL reconstruction using interference screws or anchors for autograft femoral fixation were compared [55]. The analysis of 19 clinical trials revealed no significant differences in Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Scale scores outcomes. The mean Kujala score improvement for anchor and interference screw fixation was 30.35 versus 35.75, respectively. The last follow-up scores were 86.23 ± 7.71 versus 88.37 ± 3.71 at a 46.5 ± 20.9 months follow-up, respectively. These results agree with the findings of the present systematic review and are further supported by additional studies which have not been included because, though published in peer-reviewed journals, they did not meet our strict inclusion criteria [19, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. On the other hand, the complication profile of hardware-free fixation shares similarities with implant-based fixation techniques, including subjective instability, positive apprehension test, and redislocation [55].

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction was initially developed for skeletally immature patients to avoid growth damage to the distal femur physis [17, 51, 61, 63]. However, this technique has also been extended to the adult population [18, 33, 35, 36]. Indeed, among the studies considered in the present systematic review, only two included studies included solely patients younger than 18 years [23, 44], are adult population was the most commonly investigated [18, 21, 33, 35,36,37]. These findings confirmed a trend towards hardware-free techniques implementation regardless of the patient's age.

The present study certainly has some limitations. Only three studies reported information on isolated hardware-free MPFL reconstruction. Five studies combined MPFL reconstruction with additional soft-tissue or bony realignment procedures [18, 27, 34,35,36], and three studies with other treatments addressing to osteochondral injuries [18, 33, 36]. The combination of such procedures limits the extent of the findings of the present systematic review. Nevertheless, more than two-thirds of the patients presenting recurrent patellar dislocations demonstrate two or more pathoanatomical predisposing factors, which may synergistically predispose them to joint instability [64,65,66]. The association of additional procedures is still debated and should be evaluated at an individual level [1, 67]. Six of eight studies were case series, thus negatively impacting the overall quality of the results. Future comparative studies should follow a cost-effectiveness analysis methodology to find the most efficient MPFL reconstruction technique. The clinical relevance of the present systematic review is that the use of hardware-free MPFL reconstruction fixation techniques may represent an effective alternative for the surgical treatment of recurrent patellofemoral instability in cost-sensitive environments. Orthopaedic surgeons may benefit their patients with lower costs, no need for implants, lack of implant-related complications, and further surgery for implant removal.

Conclusion

Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction provided clinical improvement and was associated with a low redislocation rate in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability. Advantages such as safety, femoral physis preservation, and comparable complication profiles with implant-based techniques endorse their implementation. Orthopaedic surgeons in cost-sensitive environments may also benefit their patients with lower costs, no need for implants, lack of implant-related complications, and surgery for implant removal.

Availability of data and materials

This study does not contain any third material.

Abbreviations

mCMS:

modified Coleman Methodology Score

MPFL:

Medial patellofemoral ligament

MTFL:

Medial tibiofemoral ligament

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROMs:

Patient-reported outcome measures

TT-TG:

Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove

References

  1. Wilkens OE, Hannink G, van de Groes SAW. Recurrent patellofemoral instability rates after MPFL reconstruction techniques are in the range of instability rates after other soft tissue realignment techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(6):1919–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05656-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schneider DK, Grawe B, Magnussen RA, Ceasar A, Parikh SN, Wall EJ, Colosimo AJ, Kaeding CC, Myer GD. Outcomes after isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for the treatment of recurrent lateral patellar dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2993–3005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515624673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chouteau J. Surgical reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(1 Suppl):S189–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.06.030.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML, Silva P, Davis DK, Elias DA, White LM. Epidemiology and natural history of acute patellar dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(5):1114–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546503260788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sillanpää P, Mattila VM, Iivonen T, Visuri T, Pihlajamäki H. Incidence and risk factors of acute traumatic primary patellar dislocation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(4):606–11. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318160740f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lewallen L, McIntosh A, Dahm D. First-time patellofemoral dislocation: risk factors for recurrent instability. J Knee Surg. 2015;28(4):303–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1398373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiemstra LA, Page JL, Kerslake S. Patient-reported outcome measures for patellofemoral instability: a critical review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(2):124–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09537-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Migliorini F, Driessen A, Quack V, Schenker H, Tingart M, Eschweiler J. Patellar fixation graft via suture anchors versus tunnel techniques during isolated MPFL reconstruction for recurrent patellofemoral instability: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(9):1201–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03420-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Jiang B, Qiao C, Shi Y, Ren Y, Han C, Zhu Y, Na Y. Evaluation of risk correlation between recurrence of patellar dislocation and damage to the medial patellofemoral ligament in different sites caused by primary patellar dislocation by MRI: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):461. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01984-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Migliorini F, Oliva F, Maffulli GD, Eschweiler J, Knobe M, Tingart M, Maffulli N. Isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellofemoral instability: analysis of outcomes and risk factors. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):239. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02383-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Amis AA, Firer P, Mountney J, Senavongse W, Thomas NP. Anatomy and biomechanics of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee. 2003;10(3):215–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0160(03)00006-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bulgheroni E, Vasso M, Losco M, Di Giacomo G, Benigni G, Bertoldi L, Schiavone PA. Management of the first patellar dislocation: a narrative review. Joints. 2019;7(3):107–14. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-3401817.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Agarwalla A, Yao K, Darden C, Gowd AK, Sherman SL, Farr J, Shubin Stein BE, Amin NH, Liu JN. Assessment and trends of the methodological quality of the top 50 most cited articles on patellar instability. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(1):2325967120972016. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120972016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Vetrano M, Oliva F, Bisicchia S, Bossa M, De Carli A, Di Lorenzo L, Erroi D, Forte A, Foti C, Frizziero A, Gasparre G, Via AG, Innocenti B, Longo UG, Mahmoud A, Masiero S, Mazza D, Natali S, Notarangelo C, Osti L, Padulo J, Pellicciari L, Perroni F, Piccirilli E, Ramponi C, Salvatore G, Panni AS, Suarez T, Tarantino U, Vittadini F, Vulpiani MC, Ferretti A, Maffulli N (2017) IS Mu L.T. first-time patellar dislocation guidelines. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 7(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2017.7.1.001.

  15. Gao G, Liu P, Xu Y. Treatment of patellar dislocation with arthroscopic medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using gracilis tendon autograft and modified double-patellar tunnel technique: minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-1556-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Calanna F, Pulici L, Carimati G, Quaglia A, Volpi P. Medial patello-femoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction using suture anchors fixation: preliminary results. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(1):64–70. https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2016.6.1.064.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pilone C, Bonasia DE, Rosso F, Cottino U, Mazzola C, Blonna D, Rossi R, Sigascot Knee Committee. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction and nonanatomic stabilization techniques in skeletally immature patients. Joints. 2019;7(3):98–106. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-3400451.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lind M, Nielsen T, Miller L, Sørensen OG, Mygind-Klavsen B, Faunø P. No difference in outcome between femoral soft-tissue and screw graft fixation for reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament: a randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(4):1130–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Becher C, Kley K, Lobenhoffer P, Ezechieli M, Smith T, Ostermeier S. Dynamic versus static reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for recurrent lateral patellar dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(10):2452–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devgan A, Yadav U, Sharma P, Rohilla R, Devgan R, Mudgil P, Verma A, Dhupper V. Implantless patellar fixation in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Chin J Traumatol. 2019;22(5):281–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.06.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Marot V, Sanchis-Alfonso V, Perelli S, Gelber PE, Sánchez Rábago CJ, Ginovart G, Monllau JC. Isolated reconstruction of medial patellofemoral ligament with an elastic femoral fixation leads to excellent clinical results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(3):800–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06016-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hendawi T, Godshaw B, Flowers C, Stephens I, Haber L, Waldron S. Autograft vs allograft comparison in pediatric medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Ochsner J. 2019;19(2):96–101. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.18.0081.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Li J, Li Y, Wei J, Wang J, Gao S, Shen Y. A simple technique for reconstruction of medial patellofemoral ligament with bone-fascia tunnel fixation at the medial margin of the patella: a 6-year-minimum follow-up study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0066-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. He W, Yang YM, Liu M, Wang AY, Liu YJ. Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament using hamstring tendon graft with different methods: a biomechanical study. Chin Med Sci J. 2013;28(4):201–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1001-9294(14)60002-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdel-Aziz A, Sherif MM, Waly MR, Abdel-Aziz MA, Mostafa Zaky Abdelrazek BH. Simple cost-effective reinsertion of avulsed medial patellofemoral ligament in acute patellar dislocation. Arthrosc Tech. 2021;10(3):e847–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2020.10.076.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Niu J, Qi Q, Fu K, Duan G, Liu C, Wang F. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with semi-patellar tunnel fixation: surgical technique and mid-term follow-up. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:5870–5. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.905583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Abouelsoud MM, Abdelhady A, Elshazly O. Anatomic physeal-sparing technique for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients with ligamentous laxity. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(5):921–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1618-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raoulis V, Zibis A, Fyllos A, Malahias MA, Banios K, Hantes M. Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament using two blind transverse semi-patella tunnels and an implant-free technique for patellar fixation: a technical note. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02161-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Marín Fermín T, Hovsepian JM, Rodrigues Fernandes VM, Terzidis I, Papakostas E, Koh J. Nonanatomic and suture-based coracoclavicular joint stabilization techniques provide adequate stability at a lower cost of implants in biomechanical studies when compared with anatomic techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021;3(2):e573–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.12.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tracking universal health coverage: 2017 global monitoring report. Geneva: World Health Organization and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. 2017.

  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sillanpää PJ, Mäenpää HM, Mattila VM, Visuri T, Pihlajamäki H. Arthroscopic surgery for primary traumatic patellar dislocation: a prospective, nonrandomized study comparing patients treated with and without acute arthroscopic stabilization with a median 7-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(12):2301–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508322894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maffulli N, Aicale R, D’Addona A, Young DA, Kader DF, Oliva F. Combined medial patellofemoral and patellotibial reconstruction with soft tissue fixation in recurrent patellar dislocation. Injury. 2020;51(8):1867–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.06.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Malecki K, Fabis J, Flont P, Niedzielski KR. The results of adductor magnus tenodesis in adolescents with recurrent patellar dislocation. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:456858. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/456858.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Monllau JC, Masferrer-Pino À, Ginovart G, Pérez-Prieto D, Gelber PE, Sanchis-Alfonso V. Clinical and radiological outcomes after a quasi-anatomical reconstruction of medial patellofemoral ligament with gracilis tendon autograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2453–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3934-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shimizu R, Sumen Y, Sakaridani K, Matsuura M, Adachi N. Middle-to long-term outcome after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with Insall’s proximal realignment for patellar instability. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2019;17:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmart.2019.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sobhy MH, Mahran MA, Kamel EM. Midterm results of combined patellofemoral and patellotibial ligaments reconstruction in recurrent patellar dislocation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(4):465–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-0999-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(1):2–11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010001002.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fisher M, Singh S, Samora WP 3rd, Beran MC, Klingele KE. Outcomes of MPFL reconstruction utilizing a quadriceps turndown technique in the adolescent/pediatric population. J Pediatr Orthop. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mittal R, Balawat AS, Manhas V, Roy A, Singh NK. Habitual patellar dislocation in children: results of surgical treatment by modified four in one technique. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017;8(Suppl 2):S82–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2017.03.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. von Engelhardt LV, Fuchs T, Weskamp P, Jerosch J. Effective patellofemoral joint stabilization and low complication rates using a hardware-free MPFL reconstruction technique with an intra-operative adjustment of the graft tension. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(9):2750–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4723-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kodkani PS. “Basket weave technique” for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome of a prospective study. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.173520.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lind M, Enderlein D, Nielsen T, Christiansen SE, Faunø P. Clinical outcome after reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament in paediatric patients with recurrent patella instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(3):666–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3439-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hinterwimmer S, Imhoff AB, Minzlaff P, Saier T, Rosenstiel N, Hawe W, Feucht MJ. Anatomical two-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with hardware-free patellar graft fixation: technical note and preliminary results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(9):2147–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2498-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Malecki K, Fabis J, Flont P, Lipczyk Z, Niedzielski K. Preliminary results of two surgical techniques in the treatment of recurrent patellar dislocation: Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction versus combined technique of vastus medialis advancement, capsular plasty and Roux-Goldthwait procedure in treatment of recurrent patellar dislocation. Int Orthop. 2016;40(9):1869–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3119-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kiran KR, Srikanth IM, Chinnusamy L, Deepti K. Dynamic medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in recurrent patellar instability: a surgical technique. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49(6):630–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.168768.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Gomes JE. Comparison between a static and a dynamic technique for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(4):430–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2007.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sillanpää P, Mattila VM, Visuri T, Mäenpää H, Pihlajamäki H. Ligament reconstruction versus distal realignment for patellar dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1475–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0207-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Steiner TM, Torga-Spak R, Teitge RA. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in patients with lateral patellar instability and trochlear dysplasia. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(8):1254–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546505285584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Deie M, Ochi M, Sumen Y, Adachi N, Kobayashi K, Yasumoto M. A long-term follow-up study after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using the transferred semitendinosus tendon for patellar dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):522–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-005-0641-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Deie M, Ochi M, Sumen Y, Yasumoto M, Kobayashi K, Kimura H. Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for the treatment of habitual or recurrent dislocation of the patella in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(6):887–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vasso M, Corona K, Toro G, Rossini M, Schiavone PA. Anatomic double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with autologous semitendinosus: aperture fixation both at the femur and the patella. Joints. 2017;5(4):256–60. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1607192.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Nha KW, Bae JH, Hwang SC, Nam YJ, Shin MJ, Bhandare NN, Kumar A, Kang DG, Lee DY. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using an autograft or allograft for patellar dislocation: a systematic review. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2019;31(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-019-0008-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. McNeilan RJ, Everhart JS, Mescher PK, Abouljoud M, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC. Graft choice in isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of rates of recurrent instability and patient-reported outcomes for autograft, allograft, and synthetic options. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1340–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.11.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Migliorini F, Baroncini A, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Maffulli N. Interference screws vs. suture anchors for isolated medial patellofemoral ligament femoral fixation: a systematic review. J Sport Health Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.11.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Migliorini F, Trivellas A, Colarossi G, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Rath B. Single- versus double-bundle patellar graft insertion for isolated MPFL reconstruction in patients with patellofemoral instability: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(6):769–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03376-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Migliorini F, Trivellas A, Eschweiler J, Knobe M, Tingart M, Maffulli N. Comparable outcome for autografts and allografts in primary medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for patellofemoral instability: systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06569-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Migliorini F, Trivellas A, Driessen A, Quack V, Tingart M, Eschweiler J. Graft choice for isolated MPFL reconstruction: gracilis versus semitendinosus. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020;30(5):763–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02636-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Zhang H, Ye M, Liang Q. Clinical outcomes after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with suture fixation of the gracilis tendon via transosseous tunnels. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(2):2325967119900373. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119900373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Raoulis VA, Zibis A, Chiotelli MD, Kermanidis AT, Banios K, Schuster P, Hantes ME. Biomechanical evaluation of three patellar fixation techniques for MPFL reconstruction: Load to failure did not differ but interference screw stabilization was stiffer than suture anchor and suture-knot fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06389-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gould HP, Delaney NR, Parks BG, Melvani RT, Hinton RY. Interference screw versus suture anchors for femoral fixation in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(3):2325967121989282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967121989282.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Shafizadeh S, Balke M. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a new technique for graft fixation at the patella without implants. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(1):e115–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2013.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Maffulli N, Aicale R, Tarantino D, Young DA. Combined reconstruction of the medial patellotibial and patellofemoral ligaments. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2019;9(2):194–201. https://doi.org/10.32098/mltj.02.2019.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Boling MC, Padua DA, Marshall SW, Guskiewicz K, Pyne S, Beutler A. A prospective investigation of biomechanical risk factors for patellofemoral pain syndrome: the Joint Undertaking to Monitor and Prevent ACL Injury (JUMP-ACL) cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(11):2108–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509337934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Hiemstra LA, Kerslake S, Lafave M. Assessment of demographic and pathoanatomic risk factors in recurrent patellofemoral instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(12):3849–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4346-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Steensen RN, Bentley JC, Trinh TQ, Backes JR, Wiltfong RE. The prevalence and combined prevalences of anatomic factors associated with recurrent patellar dislocation: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(4):921–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514563904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Liebensteiner M, Keiler A, El Attal R, Balcarek P, Dirisamer F, Giesinger J, Seitlinger G, Nelitz M, Keshmiri A, Frings J, Becher C, Kappel P, Wagner D, Pagenstert G. Conservative versus tailored surgical treatment in patients with first time lateral patella dislocation: a randomized-controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):378. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02513-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No external source of funding was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TMF: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft; FM: methodology, validation, formal analysis, visualization; GK: methodology, validation, investigation; BAZ: writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration; PDH: writing—review and editing, supervision; KAK: writing—review and editing, supervision; ETP: validation, writing—review and editing, supervision; NM: validation, writing—review and editing supervision, project administration. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

All the author approved the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marín Fermín, T., Migliorini, F., Kalifis, G. et al. Hardware-free MPFL reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability is safe and effective. J Orthop Surg Res 17, 121 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03008-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03008-5

Keywords

  • Hardware-free
  • Medial patellofemoral ligament
  • MPFL reconstruction
  • Patellofemoral instability