Search

Aim The diagnosis and treatment of patellar dislocation is very complex. The aim of this study is to give an overview of the biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint and to point out the latest developments in diagnosis and treatment of patellar dislocation. Method The authors electronically searched Medline, Cochrane and Embase for studies on the biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint and for conservative and surgical treatments after patellar dislocation. We extracted baseline demographics, biomechanical, conservation and surgical details. Results Understanding the biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint is necessary to understand the pathology of patellar dislocation. The patellofemoral joint consists of a complex system of static, active and passive stabilising factors. Patellar instability can result from osseous and soft-tissue abnormalities, such as trochlear dysplasia, patella alta, a high tibial tuberosity trochlear groove (TTTG) distance, weaknesses of the vastus medialis obliquus or a lesion of the medial retinaculum. Recent studies have focused on the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) and have shown that the MPFL is the most significant passive stabiliser of the patella. Following patellar dislocation, an MRI should be standard practice to detect an MPFL rupture, osteochondral lesions or other risk factors for redislocation. An acute first-time patellar dislocation without osteochondral lesions and without severe risk factors for a redislocation should follow a conservative treatment plan. If surgical treatment is required, the best postoperative results occur when the MPFL is reconstructed, leading to a redislocation rate of 5%, this includes cases that have a dysplastic trochlea. Duplication of the medial retinaculum show very inconsistent results in the literature, possibly due to the fact that the essential pathomorphology of patellar dislocation is not addressed. Addressing the exact location of the rupture of the MPFL with a suture is possibly more convenient, especially after first-time dislocation with associated risk factors for a redislocation. Recent literature does not encourage the use of lateral release, since this can increase patellar instability. Indications for lateral release include persistent patellar instability or pain reduction in an older arthritic subject. For correcting a patellofemoral malalignment, the TTTG distance should be measured and a medial transposition of the anterior tibial tubercle hinged on a distal periosteal attachment should be considered. Cartilage lesions on the medial facet of the patella are a contra-indication for medial tubercle transposition. For cartilage lesions of the lateral facet, antero-medialization of the tibial tubercle can be successful. A tubercle osteotomy can be efficiently combined with MPFL reconstruction. We believe that patients with open epiphyseal plates should be treated with duplication of the medial retinaculum. In the presence of patellar maltracking, an additional subperiostal soft tissue release with medialisation of the distal part of the patellar tendon can be performed. Conclusion It seems that the predominating factors for patellar dislocation are heterogenic morphology in combination with individual predisposition. Non-surgical treatment is typically recommended for primary patellar dislocation without any osteochondral lesions and in the absence of significant risk factors for redislocation. If surgical treatment is deemed necessary, addressing the essential pathomorphology has become the primary focus.

AIM Refixation of osteochondral fractures with resorbable implants is a common surgical treatment. There are almost no studies that prove good clinical outcomes. Hence, the aim of the study was to evaluate the mid-term results after refixation of osteochondral fractures. METHODS The results of 12 patients were recorded 6.5 (±1) years after refixation of osteochondral fractures measuring 3.4 cm (2) (±2.5) of the knee (8 ×) or the ankle joint (4 ×) with resorbable inplants. Clinical scores and a modified MRI score based on that of Henderson et al. were used. RESULTS The clinical scores showed good to excellent results after 6.5 (±1) years (VAS pain: 1.9 [±2.4], Tegner: 5.0 [±1.7], Lysholm: 84.8 [±14.3], McDermott: 91.3 [±7.9], Knee Society: 189.4 [±12.1]). MRI showed with one exception good integration of the fractures. In 3 cases subchondral cysts could be found. In 7 cases changes in the chondral outline occurred. The effect of this was a modified Henderson score of 12.6 (±3.7). The MRI results did not correlate with the clinical outcome. CONCLUSION Because of its good clinical results the refixation with resorbable implants can be recommended to treat osteochondral fractures.

BACKGROUND: A review of recent reports concerning the functional outcome after treatment for Cyclops syndrome can produce contradictory results. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of our patients treated for Cyclops syndrome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2006 ten patients were followed for the occurrence of a Cyclops syndrome. The Lysholm score, Marshall score and Tegner activity score was used for clinical evaluation at final follow up; in addition, a subjective assessment of knee function and knee pain on a visual analogue scale was registered. Knee stability was measured using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Results were compared with a control group of 24 uneventful ACL reconstructions. RESULTS: Revision arthroscopy for symptomatic extension block was performed after a mean of 6.8 months. After a mean follow-up of 23 months after second surgery all patients’ regained full range of motion. The mean Lysholm score and Marshall score was 85 and 41 after Cyclops syndrome and 92 and 46 for the control group. After Cyclops syndrome patients experienced a significantly increased ACL transplant laxity but no significant difference was found concerning patient’s subjective rating of knee function and knee pain. CONCLUSION: Although patients subjective rating of knee function and knee pain was nearly identical in both groups objective knee scores disclosed impaired knee function in our patients treated for Cyclops syndrome.