AJSM signin
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on February 22, 2008, doi:10.1177/0363546508314410

(American Journal of Sports Medicine 2008;36:747.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on April 1, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (AJSM PreView[PDF])
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
36/4/747    most recent
0363546508314410v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Melegari, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Matthews, L. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Melegari, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Matthews, L. S.

Article

Patellofemoral Contact Area and Pressure After Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

Todd M. Melegari, MD, Brent G. Parks, MSc, Leslie S. Matthews, MD*

the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lyn.camire{at}medstar.net.


   Abstract

Background: It is not known whether nonisometric femoral graft attachment diminishes the effectiveness of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction.

Purpose: To determine whether a nonisometric femoral attachment point is associated with differences in contact area and pressure in the patellofemoral joint as compared with an isometric attachment point.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Eleven cadaveric knees were amputated and secured in a loading fixture. The quadriceps tendon was clamped 5 cm above the proximal pole of the patella and fixed to a plate. Colinear compressive forces were applied. Forces were set to achieve isometric quadriceps moments at 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. Contact areas and pressures were measured using a sensor system. Initially, isometric reconstruction was done using the known isometric femoral attachment point of the posterior medial epicondyle. The attachment was then revised in each specimen to the known nonisometric femoral attachment of the adductor tubercle.

Results: Before medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction, average facet patellofemoral contact area and pressure generally increased with angle of knee flexion. With few exceptions, initial versus postprocedure data and isometric versus nonisometric contact area and pressure data did not differ significantly at any angle tested. Percentage contact area and contact pressure in the medial facet did not differ significantly from the initial percentage for either attachment, and no difference was found in the percentage medial contact area or pressure for isometric versus nonisometric attachment at the angles tested.

Conclusion: Use of the nonisometric attachment point of the adductor tubercle in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction did not appear to alter knee contact area or contact pressures as compared with isometric femoral attachment at the posterior medial epicondyle.

Clinical Relevance: In medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction, patellofemoral contact area and pressure may not be adversely affected by use of the nonisometric femoral attachment point used in this study.







HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2008 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.