4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Long-term evaluation of the Roux-Elmslie-Trillat procedure for patellar instability - A 26-year follow-up

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1220-1223

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546504272686

关键词

Roux-Eimslie-Trillat; patellofemoral; instability; patella

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Few published articles exist reporting the long-term evaluation of the Roux-Elmslie-Trillat procedure. Purpose: To assess the long-term effect of the Roux-Elmslie-Trillat procedure in preventing recurrent subluxation and dislocation of the patella. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Eighteen patients who underwent the Roux-Elmslie-Trillat procedure for dislocation or subluxation of the patella were identified from a group previously evaluated at a mean follow-up of 3 years. The prevalence of recurrent subluxation or dislocation at a mean follow-up of 26 years was compared with the prevalence reported at the mean follow-up of 3 years. Although not the focus of this study, Cox functional scores were obtained from the smaller group and compared with the results at the 3-year follow-up. Results: Seven percent (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.32) of the patients had recurrent subluxation at 26 years compared with 7% (95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.13) of the study population reported at 3 years (P = 1.00). Fifty-four percent (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.79) rated their affected knee as good or excellent at 26 years compared with 73% (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.81) of the larger study population reported at 3 years (P = .14). Conclusion: The prevalence of recurrent subluxation and dislocation in patients with patellofemoral malalignment who underwent the Roux-Elmslie-Trillat procedure for dislocation or subluxation of the patella is similar at 3 and 26 years after the procedure. The long-term functional status of the affected knee in patients who underwent the Roux-Eimslie-Trillat procedure declined.

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

4.6
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