Clinical and Radiological Outcomes After Combined ACL and MPFL Reconstruction Versus Isolated ACL Reconstruction for ACL Injury With Patellar Instability
Authors: Wu Xiulin , Chen Jiebo , Ye Zipeng , Dong Shikui , Xie Guoming , Zhao Song , Xu Caiqi , Li Ziyun , Xu Junjie , Zhao Jinzhong 
Published: February 2024

Background: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury accompanied by patellar instability (PI) is a topic that has gained orthopaedic surgeons’ attention recently. Untreated PI is reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes after isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in patients after an ACL injury with PI. Nevertheless, the appropriate surgical approach and its long-term therapeutic effects in these patients remain unclear. Purpose: (1) To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between isolated ACLR (iACLR) and combined ACLR and medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (cAMR) in patients after an ACL injury with PI and (2) to explore the correlations between these 2 procedures and clinical and radiological outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 106 patients diagnosed with an ACL injury accompanied by PI between January 2016 and April 2021 were analyzed in this study. There were 34 patients excluded because of missing postoperative radiological data. Among the remaining 72 patients, 34 patients underwent iACLR, while 38 patients underwent cAMR. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative findings, and patient-reported outcomes (Lysholm score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, and Tegner activity score) were prospectively collected. Patellar alignment parameters and worsening patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) features (evaluated with the modified Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score) were analyzed longitudinally on magnetic resonance imaging. The Kujala score was used to evaluate the functional recovery of the patellofemoral joint, and redislocations of the patella were prospectively recorded. Finally, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the correlations between these 2 procedures and clinical (not achieving the minimal detectable change [MDC] for the Lysholm score) and radiological (worsening PFOA features) outcomes. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 28.9 ± 6.2 and 27.1 ± 6.8 months for the iACLR and cAMR groups, respectively ( P = .231). Significantly higher Lysholm scores (88.3 ± 9.9 vs 82.1 ± 11.1, respectively; P = .016) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (83.6 ± 11.9 vs 78.3 ± 10.2, respectively; P = .046) were detected in the cAMR group compared with the iACLR group postoperatively. The rates of return to preinjury sports were 20.6% and 44.7% in the iACLR and cAMR groups, respectively (difference, 24.1% [95% CI, 3.3%-45.0%]; P = .030). Moreover, the rates of worsening PFOA features were 44.1% and 18.4% in the iACLR and cAMR groups, respectively (difference, 25.7% [95% CI, 4.9%-46.4%]; P = .018). In addition, significantly higher Kujala scores (87.9 ± 11.3 vs 80.1 ± 12.0, respectively; P = .006), lower redislocation rates (0.0% vs 11.8%, respectively; difference, 11.8% [95% CI, 0.9%-22.6%]; P = .045), and significantly better patellar alignment were detected in the cAMR group compared with the iACLR group postoperatively. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that iACLR and partial lateral meniscectomy were significantly correlated with not achieving the MDC for the Lysholm score and worsening PFOA features in our study population. Conclusion: In patients after an ACL injury with PI, cAMR yielded better clinical and radiological outcomes compared with iACLR, with better patellar stability and a lower proportion of worsening PFOA features. Furthermore, not achieving the MDC for the Lysholm score and worsening PFOA features were significantly correlated with iACLR and partial lateral meniscectomy. Our study suggests that cAMR may be a more appropriate procedure for patients after an ACL injury with PI, which warrants further high-level clinical evidence.