Cargando…

Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of various medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fixation techniques on patellar pressure compared with the native knee. Methods: A finite element model of the patellofemoral joint consisting of approximately 30,700 nodes and 22,200 elements was created from comput...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente, Ginovart, Gerard, Alastruey-López, Diego, Montesinos-Berry, Erik, Monllau, Joan Carles, Alberich-Bayarri, Angel, Pérez, María Angeles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6947356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805708
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8122093
_version_ 1783485531529674752
author Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente
Ginovart, Gerard
Alastruey-López, Diego
Montesinos-Berry, Erik
Monllau, Joan Carles
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Pérez, María Angeles
author_facet Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente
Ginovart, Gerard
Alastruey-López, Diego
Montesinos-Berry, Erik
Monllau, Joan Carles
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Pérez, María Angeles
author_sort Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente
collection PubMed
description Objectives: To evaluate the effect of various medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fixation techniques on patellar pressure compared with the native knee. Methods: A finite element model of the patellofemoral joint consisting of approximately 30,700 nodes and 22,200 elements was created from computed tomography scans of 24 knees with chronic lateral patellar instability. Patellar contact pressures and maximum MPFL graft stress at five positions of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°) were analyzed in three types of MPFL reconstruction (MPFLr): (1) static/anatomic, (2) dynamic, using the adductor magnus tendon (AMT) as the femoral fixation, and (3) dynamic, using the quadriceps tendon as the attachment (medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament (MQTFL) reconstruction). Results: In the static/anatomic technique, the patellar contact pressures at 0° and 30° were greater than in the native knee. As in a native knee, the contact pressures at 60°, 90°, and 120° were very low. The maximum MPFL graft stress at 0° and 30° was greater than in a native knee. However, the MPFL graft was loose at 60°, 90°, and 120°, meaning it had no tension. In the dynamic MPFLr using the AMT as a pulley, the patellar contact pressures were like those of a native knee throughout the entire range of motion. However, the maximum stress of the MPFL graft at 0° was less than that of a native ligament. Yet, the maximum MPFL graft stress was greater at 30° than in a native ligament. After 30° of flexion, the MPFL graft loosened, similarly to a native knee. In the dynamic MQTFL reconstruction, the maximum patellar contact pressure was slightly greater than in a normal knee. The maximum stress of the MPFL graft was much greater at 0° and 30° than that of a native MPFL. After 30° of flexion, the MQPFL graft loosened just as in the native knee. Conclusions: The patellar contact pressures after the dynamic MPFLr were like those of the native knee, whereas a static reconstruction resulted in greater pressures, potentially increasing the risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in the long term. Therefore, the dynamic MPFLr might be a safer option than a static reconstruction from a biomechanical perspective.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6947356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69473562020-01-13 Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente Ginovart, Gerard Alastruey-López, Diego Montesinos-Berry, Erik Monllau, Joan Carles Alberich-Bayarri, Angel Pérez, María Angeles J Clin Med Article Objectives: To evaluate the effect of various medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fixation techniques on patellar pressure compared with the native knee. Methods: A finite element model of the patellofemoral joint consisting of approximately 30,700 nodes and 22,200 elements was created from computed tomography scans of 24 knees with chronic lateral patellar instability. Patellar contact pressures and maximum MPFL graft stress at five positions of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°) were analyzed in three types of MPFL reconstruction (MPFLr): (1) static/anatomic, (2) dynamic, using the adductor magnus tendon (AMT) as the femoral fixation, and (3) dynamic, using the quadriceps tendon as the attachment (medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament (MQTFL) reconstruction). Results: In the static/anatomic technique, the patellar contact pressures at 0° and 30° were greater than in the native knee. As in a native knee, the contact pressures at 60°, 90°, and 120° were very low. The maximum MPFL graft stress at 0° and 30° was greater than in a native knee. However, the MPFL graft was loose at 60°, 90°, and 120°, meaning it had no tension. In the dynamic MPFLr using the AMT as a pulley, the patellar contact pressures were like those of a native knee throughout the entire range of motion. However, the maximum stress of the MPFL graft at 0° was less than that of a native ligament. Yet, the maximum MPFL graft stress was greater at 30° than in a native ligament. After 30° of flexion, the MPFL graft loosened, similarly to a native knee. In the dynamic MQTFL reconstruction, the maximum patellar contact pressure was slightly greater than in a normal knee. The maximum stress of the MPFL graft was much greater at 0° and 30° than that of a native MPFL. After 30° of flexion, the MQPFL graft loosened just as in the native knee. Conclusions: The patellar contact pressures after the dynamic MPFLr were like those of the native knee, whereas a static reconstruction resulted in greater pressures, potentially increasing the risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in the long term. Therefore, the dynamic MPFLr might be a safer option than a static reconstruction from a biomechanical perspective. MDPI 2019-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6947356/ /pubmed/31805708 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8122093 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Sanchis-Alfonso, Vicente
Ginovart, Gerard
Alastruey-López, Diego
Montesinos-Berry, Erik
Monllau, Joan Carles
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Pérez, María Angeles
Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title_full Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title_fullStr Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title_short Evaluation of Patellar Contact Pressure Changes after Static versus Dynamic Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstructions Using a Finite Element Model
title_sort evaluation of patellar contact pressure changes after static versus dynamic medial patellofemoral ligament reconstructions using a finite element model
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6947356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805708
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8122093
work_keys_str_mv AT sanchisalfonsovicente evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT ginovartgerard evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT alastrueylopezdiego evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT montesinosberryerik evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT monllaujoancarles evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT alberichbayarriangel evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel
AT perezmariaangeles evaluationofpatellarcontactpressurechangesafterstaticversusdynamicmedialpatellofemoralligamentreconstructionsusingafiniteelementmodel