English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

(1) The malposition of the femoral tunnel in medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction can lead to length changes in the MPFL graft, and an increase in medial peak pressure in the patellofemoral joint. It is the cause of 36% of all MPFL revisions. According to Schöttle et al., the creation of the drill canal should be performed in a strictly lateral radiograph. In this study, it was hypothesized that positioning the image receptor to the knee during intraoperative fluoroscopy would lead to a relevant mispositioning of the femoral tunnel, despite an always adjusted true-lateral view. (2) A total of 10 distal femurs were created from 10 knee CT scans using a 3D printer. First, true-lateral fluoroscopies were taken from lateral to medial at a 25 cm (LM25) distance from the image receptor, then from medial to lateral at a 5 cm (ML5) distance. Using the method from Schöttle, the femoral origin of the MPFL was determined when the femur was positioned distally, proximally, superiorly, and inferiorly to the image receptor. (3) The comparison of the selected MPFL insertion points according to Schöttle et al. revealed that the initial determination of the point in the ML5 view resulted in a distal and posterior shift of the point by 5.3 mm ± 1.2 mm when the point was checked in the LM25 view. In the opposite case, when the MPFL insertion was initially determined in the LM25 view and then redetermined in the ML5 view, there was a shift of 4.8 mm ± 2.2 mm anteriorly and proximally. The further positioning of the femur (distal, proximal, superior, and inferior) showed no relevant influence. (4) For fluoroscopic identification of the femoral MPFL, according to Schöttle et al., attention should be paid to the position of the fluoroscopy in addition to a true-lateral view.

Influence of the Fluoroscopy Setting towards the Patient When Identifying the MPFL Insertion Point