4.5 Article

Analysis of failed surgery for patellar instability in children with open growth plates

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-011-1599-5

关键词

Recurrent patellofemoral instability; Trochlear dysplasia; Children; Adolescents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many surgical procedures have been proposed to treat recurrent patellar dislocation in children. In recent years, a more tailored approach considering the underlying pathology has been advocated. The aim of the study was to analyze a group of patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability after unsuccessful operative stabilization (Roux-Goldthwait procedure, lateral release, medial reefing or in combination) in childhood and adolescence. A total of 37 children and adolescents with recurrent patellofemoral instability despite previous surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Radiographic examination included AP and lateral views to assess patella alta and limb alignment. MRI was performed to evaluate trochlear dysplasia and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TTTG) distance. As a control group, 23 age- and sex-matched adolescents that were treated with a favorable outcome after medial reefing alone or combined with a Roux-Goldthwait procedure were analyzed. Severe trochlear dysplasia (type B-D according to Dejour) as detected on MRI scans was found significantly more often in the study group (89%) than in the control group (21%). No statistical difference of patellar height ratio (Insall-Salvati index) and TTTG distance between the two groups could be found. Of the measured parameters, only the incidence of trochlear dysplasia was increased. Trochlear dysplasia therefore seems to be a major risk factor for failure of operative stabilization of recurrent patellofemoral instability in children and adolescents. The results in children are in consensus with the literature in adults that a more tailored operative therapy including reconstruction of the MPFL and trochleaplasty has to be considered. Retrospective study, Level III.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据