A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Isolated versus combined medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for lateral instability of the patella. | LitMetric

Introduction: Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is regularly combined with a tibial tuberosity transfer (TTT) in cases of recurrent patellar instability with underlying structural deformity. However, these indications for a TTT have recently come into question. This study aimed to assess the traditional indications by comparing the outcomes of isolated and combined MPFLR for the treatment of recurrent lateral patellar dislocation.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies were those which reported the outcomes of either isolated or combined or both MPFLR. Studies were required to report at least one of the following: redislocation rate, revision due to instability, or the Kujala score.

Results: We found no difference between isolated and combined MPFLR in terms of redislocation ( p = 0.48), revisions due to instability ( p = 0.36), positive apprehension tests ( p = 0.25), or the Kujala score ( p = 0.58). Combined reconstruction presented more complications compared to isolated procedures ( p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference between studies investigating isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction MPFLR performed in patients with normal tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distances only or in patients with both normal and elevated TT-TG distances.

Conclusions: According to the published data, there is no difference in outcomes between isolated and combined MPFLR. Underlying structural deformity did not demonstrate any significant effect on the success of the isolated MPFLR. Although there are definite indications for combined reconstruction, the current evidence suggests that our inclusion criteria may not be entirely correct. Further study is required to clarify and refine the true indications for combined MPFLR.

Level Of Evidence: III, meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2309499018820698DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

isolated combined
16
combined mpflr
16
medial patellofemoral
12
patellofemoral ligament
12
ligament reconstruction
12
outcomes isolated
12
combined
9
isolated
8
reconstruction mpflr
8
underlying structural
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!