Trochlea dysplasia, increased TT-TG distance and patella alta are risk factors for developing first-time and recurrent patella dislocation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and best knowledge synthesis of the present literature concerning biomechanical risk factors for developing first-time and recurrent patella dislocation. METHODS: The study was performed as a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched. Studies investigating participants with risk factors for first-time as well as recurrent patella dislocation were included. The records were screened, and data extracted independently by two researchers supervised by a third independent assessor. The study was registered in PROSPERO. RESULTS: A total of 6233 records were screened, and 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. The biomechanical risk factors: trochlear dysplasia, increased tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance (TT-TG), and patella alta were found to be statistically significantly associated with patella dislocation in several publications and were thus recognized as risk factors for patella dislocation. The soft-tissue stabilizers: longer and thinner MPFL ligament, increased number of type 2C and decreased number of type 1 muscle fibers, and joint laxity were found to be statistically significantly associated with patella dislocation in a few publications, but due to limited evidence, no conclusion was made on this matter. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence in the literature that abnormalities of bony stabilizers, trochlear dysplasia, increased TT-TG distance, and patella alta are risk factors for patella dislocation. There is less evidence that soft-tissue stabilizers are risk factors. The study emphasizes the importance of a thorough investigation of bony stabilizers in clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Familial association and epidemilogical factors as risk factors for developing first time and recurrent patella dislocation: a systematic review and best knowledge synthesis of present literature.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and best knowledge synthesis of the present literature concerning the familial association and epidemiological factors as risk factors for developing first-time and recurrent patella dislocation. METHODS: The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. EMBASE and PubMed were systematically searched on the 5th of May 2022. Studies investigating participants with genetic and epidemiological risk factors for the first time as well as recurrent patella dislocation were included. The records were screened, and data were extracted independently by two researchers supervised by a third independent assessor. RESULTS: A total of 6,649 records were screened, and 67 studies were included. Familial association was described as a risk factor for patella dislocation in 17 studies. One study found that participants with a family history of patella dislocation had a 3.7 higher risk for patella dislocation in the contralateral asymptomatic knee, and another study found a family history of PD in 9% of 74 participants. Eleven studies found an accumulation of patella dislocation across generations in specific families. Additionally, a range of genetic syndromes was associated with patella dislocation. Young age is a well-investigated risk factor for patella dislocation, but the results are inconsistent. Only five and eight studies investigated skeletal immaturity and gender as risk factors for patella dislocation, respectively. CONCLUSION: There may be a familial association with patella dislocation, but further investigation is necessary to determine the strength and etiology of the association. There is weak evidence that epidemiological risk factors, such as age, skeletal immaturity, gender, and BMI are risk factors for patella dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique.

PURPOSE: To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015. METHODS: A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Allograft Use Results in Higher Re-revision Rate for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The literature on revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) outcomes is generally sparse, but previous studies have demonstrated that autograft use results in improved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures compared with allograft. However, knowledge is still lacking regarding the impact of graft type on rates of re-revision. PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical outcomes and failure rates of revision ACLRs performed with either allograft or autograft. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A search of the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry identified 1619 revision ACLRs: 1315 were autograft procedures and 221 were allograft procedures (type of graft was not identified for 83 procedures). Clinical outcomes after 1 year were reported via the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Tegner activity score, and an objective knee stability measurement that determined side-to-side differences in instrumented sagittal knee laxity. Failure was determined as re-revision. Outcomes for revision were provided for the full life of the registry, up to 10 years. RESULTS: The re-revision rate was significantly higher for allograft compared with autograft (12.7% vs 5.4%; P < .001), leading to a hazard ratio for re-revision of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4-3.4) for allografts compared with autografts when corrected for age. At 1-year follow-up, objective knee stability was significantly different (2.1 ± 2.1 mm for allograft vs 1.7 ± 1.8 mm for autograft; P = .01), and the KOOS subscale scores for symptoms, pain, activities of daily living, sports, and quality of life were 67, 76, 84, 49, and 46 for allograft and 67, 78, 84, 51, and 48 for autograft, respectively, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: In this observational population-based study, the ALCR re-revision rate was 2.2 times greater for allograft compared with autograft procedures. Allograft was associated with greater knee laxity at 1-year follow-up. However, subjective clinical outcomes and knee function were not inferior for allograft patients. These results indicate that autograft is a better graft choice for revision ALCR.