4.3 Article

Percutaneous Reconstruction of the Medial Patello-Femoral Ligament Using Dynamic Gracilis Tendon Transfer

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102910

关键词

Patellar dislocation; Patello-femoral instability; Medial patello-femoral ligament; Dynamic gracilis transfer; Percutaneous technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposed a percutaneous dynamic gracilis transfer technique for medial patello-femoral ligament reconstruction and evaluated its feasibility on 20 cadaveric knees. Results showed that the technique was successful in all knees, indicating its potential as a minimally invasive approach for MPFL reconstruction.
Background: Many techniques have been described for reconstructing the medial patello-femoral ligament (MPFL), using a variety of transplants and fixation methods to treat patello-femoral dislocation. The main challenge with static transfers is to position the femoral fixation point at the site that best restores MPFL anisometry. The objective of this cadaveric study was to propose a version of the initially described dynamic gracilis transfer technique that can be performed percutaneously. Hypothesis: Our working hypothesis was that using a minimally invasive approach would provide better cosmesis without altering the biomechanical efficacy of the procedure. Methods: 20 cadaveric knees were used to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of our percutaneous technique. We analysed femoral pulley location and scar length. Results: After dissection, the position of the femoral pulley allowed superimposition of the transplant along the trajectory of the native MPFL in all 20 knees. Cumulative scar length was 6.5 cm (range, 67.5 cm). Discussion: Percutaneous dynamic gracilis transfer is easy to perform, reproducible, and capable of creating a pulley that anatomically replicates the femoral insertion point of the native MPFL. Level of evidence: IV; retrospective study. (c) 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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