User login
Take-Home Points
- Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
- Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
- Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
- Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
- 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.
The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8
Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9
Methods
Patient Demographics
Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.
Surgical Indications
Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2). 
Surgical Technique
The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.
Femoral Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10 
Patellar Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella. 
In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.
Results
Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes. 
Discussion
Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.
The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).
For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.
Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.
Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.
Conclusion
The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.
2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.
3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.
4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.
5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.
6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.
7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.
8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.
9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.
10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.
11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.
12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.
13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.
14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.
15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.
16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.
17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.
Take-Home Points
- Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
- Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
- Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
- Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
- 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.
The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8
Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9
Methods
Patient Demographics
Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.
Surgical Indications
Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2).
Surgical Technique
The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.
Femoral Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10
Patellar Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella.
In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.
Results
Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes.
Discussion
Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.
The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).
For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.
Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.
Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.
Conclusion
The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
Take-Home Points
- Use ultrasound to identify integrity and location of MPFL tear.
- Anatomic repair allows native tissue to reintegrate into bone.
- Repairs done early can prevent complications of recurrent instability.
- Repair maintains biological and proprioceptive qualities of tissue.
- 10Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair is quick and effective.
The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary passive restraint to lateral patellar excursion1-5 and helps control patellar tilt and rotation.6,7 More than 90% of lateral patellar dislocations cause the MPFL to rupture, and roughly 90% of these detachments involve the femoral insertion.4 Ensuing patellar instability often results from MPFL insufficiency. It has been suggested that re-creating the anatomy and functionality of this ligament is of utmost importance in restoring normal patellar biomechanics.1-5,7,8
Anatomical risk factors for recurrent patellar instability include patella alta, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, trochlear dysplasia, and torsional abnormalities.1-4,6 A medial reefing technique with a lateral tissue release traditionally was used to restore proper kinematics, but was shown to have associated postoperative issues.9
Methods
Patient Demographics
Dr. Hirahara developed this technique in 2013 and performed it 11 times between 2013 and 2016. Of the 11 patients, 1 was excluded from our retrospective analysis because of trochlear dysplasia, now considered a relative contraindication. Of the remaining 10 patients, 5 (50%) had the repair performed on the right knee. Eight patients (80%) were female. Mean (SD) age was 17.21 (3.53) years. One patient had concurrent femur- and patella-side detachments; otherwise, 6 (60%) of 10 repairs were performed exclusively at the patella. We grade patellar instability according to amount of glide based on patellar width and quadrants. Normal lateral displacement was usually 1 to 2 quadrants of lateral glide relative to the contralateral side. Before surgery, 6 (60%) of the 10 patients presented with lateral glide of 3 quadrants, and 3 (30%) presented with lateral glide of 4 quadrants. All had patellar instability apprehension on physical examination.
Surgical Indications
Before surgery, MPFL integrity is determined by ultrasound evaluation. Repair is considered if the MPFL has a femur- or patella-side tear and is of adequate quantity and quality, and if there are minimal or no arthritic changes (Table 2).
Surgical Technique
The patient is brought to the operating room and placed supine. Patellar stability of the affected knee is assessed and compared with that of the contralateral side with patellar glide. The knee is prepared and draped in usual sterile fashion. With the knee flexed at 90º, a tourniquet is inflated. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed with standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals, and, if necessary, arthroscopic procedures are performed.
Femoral Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify the tear at the femoral attachment (watch part 1 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the femoral insertion, typically just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle (Figure 4).10
Patellar Attachment Repair
With the leg in extension, ultrasound is used to identify where the MPFL is detached from the patella (watch part 2 of the video). A spinal needle is placed at the detachment site (Figure 5). A scalpel is used to make a 1-cm incision down to the patella.
In this description, we showcase knotless and knotted techniques for each repair site. Either method is appropriate for the 2 repair sites. Owing to the superficial nature of the attachment sites—they may have very little fat, particularly at the patella—knot stacks are more prominent, can be felt after surgery, and have the potential to irritate surrounding tissues. Therefore, we prefer knotless fixation for both sites.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation after MPFL repair is much like rehabilitation after quadriceps tendon repair. The patient is locked in a brace in full extension when up and moving. Early weight-bearing and minimal use of assistive devices (crutches) are allowed because, when the leg is in full extension, there is no tension at the repair sites. Rehabilitation begins within 1 week, and normal daily function is quickly attained. The protocol emphasizes pain-free motion and suitable patellar mobility, and allows the immobilizing brace to be unlocked for exercise and sitting. During the first 4 weeks, quadriceps activation is limited; progression to full ROM occurs by 4 to 6 weeks. During the strengthening phase, loading the knee in early flexion should be avoided. Return to heavy lifting, physical activity, and sports is delayed until after 6 months in order to allow the construct to mature and integrate. Once the patient has satisfied all the strength, ROM, and functional outcome measurements, a brace is no longer required during sports and normal activity.
Results
Mean tourniquet time for each procedure, which includes diagnostic arthroscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair, was 26.9 minutes.
Discussion
Conservative management typically is recommended for acute patellar dislocations. In the event of failed conservative management or chronic patellar instability, surgical intervention is indicated. Studies have found that conservative management has recurrent-dislocation rates of 35% at 3-year follow-up and 73% at 6-year follow-up, and recurrent dislocations significantly increase patients’ risk of developing chondral and bony damage.13 MPFL repair is designed to restore proper patellar tracking and kinematics while maintaining the anatomical tissue. Lateral patellar dislocations often cause the MPFL to rupture; tears are reported in more than 90% of incidents.4 The significant rate indicates that, even after a single patellar dislocation, the MPFL should be evaluated. The MPFL contributes 50% to 60% of the medial stabilizing force during patellar tracking1,7,14 and is the primary restraint to lateral patellar excursion and excessive patellar tilt and rotation.1-5 Its absence plays a key role in recurrent lateral patellar instability. With this structure being so important, proper identification and intervention are vital. Studies have established that redislocation rates are significantly higher for nonoperatively (vs operatively) treated primary patellar dislocations.13 Simple and accurate percutaneous repair of the MPFL should be performed early to avoid the long-term complications of recurrent instability that could damage the cartilage and bone of the patella and trochlea.
The primary advantage of this technique is its novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to accurately identify anatomy and pathology and the placement of anatomical repairs. Accurate preoperative and intraoperative assessment of MPFL anatomy is vital to the success of a procedure. Descriptions of MPFL anatomy suggest discrepancies in the exact locations of the femoral and patellar attachments.2,5,7,10,12,15,16 Tanaka5 noted that, even within paired knees, there was “marked variability” in the MPFL insertions. McCarthy and colleagues10 contended the femoral attachment of the MPFL is just anterior and distal to the adductor tubercle, the landmark addressed in this technique. Steensen and colleagues16 described this attachment site as being statistically the “single most important point affecting isometry” of the MPFL. Sallay and colleagues4 asserted that an overwhelming majority of MPFL tears (87%) occur at the adductor tubercle. The variable distribution of tear locations and the importance of re-creating patient anatomy further highlight the need for individualized treatment, which is afforded by ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been inadequate in identifying MPFL anatomy; this modality is difficult, cumbersome, inaccurate, and inconsistent.11,12 Conversely, ultrasound provides real-time visualization of anatomy and allows for precise identification of MPFL attachments and accurate placement of suture anchors for repair during surgery (Figures 3, 4).
For femur-side and patella-side tears, repairs can and should be performed. For midsubstance tears, however, repair is not feasible, and reconstruction is appropriate. MPFL repair is superior to reconstruction in several ways. Repair is a simple percutaneous procedure that had a mean tourniquet time of 26.9 minutes in this study. For tissue that is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, repair allows the structure to reintegrate into bone without total reconstruction. In the event of multiple tears, the percutaneous procedure allows for repair of each attachment. As the MPFL sits between the second and third tissue layers of the medial knee, reconstruction can be difficult and invasive and require establishment of a between-layers plane, which can disrupt adjacent tissue.4,7,17 Repair also maintains native tissue and its neurovascular and proprioceptive properties.
Reconstruction of the MPFL has become the gold-standard treatment for recurrent lateral patellar instability but has limitations and complications.3,7,12,17 Reconstruction techniques use either surface anatomy palpation (requiring large incisions) or fluoroscopy to identify tunnel placement locations, and accurate placement has often been difficult and inconsistent. Our repair technique has several advantages over reconstruction. It does not burn any bridges; it allows for subsequent reconstruction. It does not require a graft and, using small suture anchors instead of large sockets and anchors, involves less bone loss. It also allows for early repair of tears—patients can return to activities, sports, and work quicker—and avoids the risk of chondral and bony damage with recurrent dislocations. According to our review of the MPFL repairs performed by Dr. Hirahara starting in 2013, the procedure is quick and successful and has outstanding outcomes.
Another treatment option for recurrent lateral patellar instability combines reefing of the medial patellofemoral tissues with a lateral release. This combination has had several postoperative complications and is no longer indicated.9 TT transfer and trochleoplasty procedures have been developed to address different aspects of patellar instability, increased TT-TG distance, and dysplastic trochlea (Table 2). Both types of procedures are highly invasive and difficult to perform, requiring technical expertise. They are best used when warranted by the anatomy, but this is uncommon. The technique we have presented allows for easy and reliable repair of dislocations in the absence of associated pathology that would require larger, more complex surgery. The ease of use and accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound make this technique superior to others.
Conclusion
The MPFL is a vital static stabilizer of the patella and as such should be evaluated in the setting of patellar injury. The novel preoperative and intraoperative use of musculoskeletal ultrasound described in this article allows for easy real-time identification of the MPFL and simple and accurate percutaneous repair of torn structures. Nonoperative treatments of acute patellar dislocations have higher rates of recurrent dislocations, which put patella and trochlea at risk for bony and chondral damage. Given appropriate tear location and tissue quality, repairs should be considered early and before reconstruction. To our knowledge, a reliable, easily reproducible MPFL repair was not described until now. We have reported on use of such a technique and on its promising patient outcomes, which should be considered when addressing MPFL injuries.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.
2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.
3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.
4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.
5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.
6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.
7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.
8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.
9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.
10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.
11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.
12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.
13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.
14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.
15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.
16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.
17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.
1. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(1):59-65.
2. Nomura E, Inoue M, Osada N. Anatomical analysis of the medial patellofemoral ligament of the knee, especially the femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):510-515.
3. Petri M, Ettinger M, Stuebig T, et al. Current concepts for patellar dislocation. Arch Trauma Res. 2015;4(3):e29301.
4. Sallay PI, Poggi J, Speer KP, Garrett WE. Acute dislocation of the patella. A correlative pathoanatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(1):52-60.
5. Tanaka MJ. Variability in the patellar attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1667-1670.
6. Philippot R, Boyer B, Testa R, Farizon F, Moyen B. The role of the medial ligamentous structures on patellar tracking during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(2):331-336.
7. Philippot R, Chouteau J, Wegrzyn J, Testa R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Medial patellofemoral ligament anatomy: implications for its surgical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(5):475-479.
8. Ahmad CS, Stein BE, Matuz D, Henry JH. Immediate surgical repair of the medial patellar stabilizers for acute patellar dislocation. A review of eight cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(6):804-810.
9. Song GY, Hong L, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H. Iatrogenic medial patellar instability following lateral retinacular release of the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2825-2830.
10. McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Wolf B, Albright J, Amendola A. Femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:58-63.
11. Redfern J, Kamath G, Burks R. Anatomical confirmation of the use of radiographic landmarks in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):293-297.
12. Barnett AJ, Howells NR, Burston BJ, Ansari A, Clark D, Eldridge JD. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel placement in reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2380-2384.
13. Regalado G, Lintula H, Kokki H, Kröger H, Väätäinen U, Eskelinen M. Six-year outcome after non-surgical versus surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation in adolescents: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):6-11.
14. Sandmeier RH, Burks RT, Bachus KN, Billings A. The effect of reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament on patellar tracking. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(3):345-349.
15. Baldwin JL. The anatomy of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2355-2361.
16. Steensen RN, Dopirak RM, McDonald WG 3rd. The anatomy and isometry of the medial patellofemoral ligament: implications for reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1509-1513.
17. Godin JA, Karas V, Visgauss JD, Garrett WE. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction using a femoral loop button fixation technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e601-e607.
