Open AccessRecurrent patellofemoral instability rates after MPFL reconstruction techniques are in the range of instability rates after other soft tissue realignment techniques
Author(s) -
Wilkens Olivier E.,
Hannink Gerjon,
Groes Sebastiaan A. W.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.806
H-Index - 125
eISSN - 1433-7347
pISSN - 0942-2056
DOI - 10.1007/s00167-019-05656-3
Subject(s) - medicine , medial patellofemoral ligament , soft tissue , instability , surgery , joint instability , patella , physics , mechanics
Purpose Recurrent patellofemoral instability is a common knee injury in skeletally immature patients. Many surgical techniques have been described in the literature, all with different success rates. Purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the available literature to assess recurrent patellofemoral instability rates after surgical treatment using MPFL reconstruction techniques and other soft tissue realignment techniques in skeletally immature patients. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched to identify all original articles concerning the surgical treatment for patellofemoral instability in skeletally immature patients and that reported post‐operative recurrent patellofemoral instability rates. Subsequently a risk of bias assessment was conducted and a meta‐analysis was performed on reported post‐operative recurrent patellofemoral instability rates after MPFL reconstruction techniques and other soft tissue realignment techniques. Results Of the 21 eligible studies (448 knees in 389 patients), 10 studies reported on MPFL reconstruction techniques using different grafts and fixation techniques and 11 reported on other soft tissue realignment procedures. In total, 62 of the 448 (13.8%) treated knees showed recurrent patellofemoral instability during follow‐up. The overall pooled recurrent patellofemoral instability rate was estimated to be 0.08 (95% CI 0.02–0.16). For MPFL reconstruction techniques, the pooled recurrent patellofemoral instability rate was estimated to be 0.02 (95% CI 0.00–0.09). For the other soft tissue realignment techniques, the pooled rate was estimated to be 0.15 (95% CI 0.04–0.31). No statistically significant difference in recurrent patellofemoral instability rates between MPFL reconstruction techniques and other soft tissue realignment techniques were found (n.s.). There was a large variation in treatment effects over different settings, including what effect is to be expected in future patients. Conclusion This systematic review and meta‐analysis found that recurrent patellofemoral instability rates after MPFL reconstruction techniques are in the range of instability rates after other soft tissue realignment techniques. The clinical relevance of this study is that it provides clinicians with the best currently available evidence on recurrent patellofemoral instability rates after surgical treatment for patellofemoral instability in skeletally immature patients. Level of evidence IV.