TY - JOUR
T1 - Radiographic Landmarks for the Femoral Attachment of the Medial Patellofemoral Complex
T2 - A Cadaveric Study
AU - Bhimani, Rohan
AU - Ashkani-Esfahani, Soheil
AU - Mirochnik, Karina
AU - Lubberts, Bart
AU - DiGiovanni, Christopher W.
AU - Tanaka, Miho J.
N1 - Funding Information: The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: B.L. and C.W.D. report nonfinancial support from Arthrex and the Butterfly Network, outside the submitted work. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Arthroscopy Association of North America
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Purpose: To report the radiographic landmarks for the medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) footprint on the medial femur and describe the difference between the radiographic positions corresponding to the medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament (MQTFL) and medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fibers. Methods: In 8 unpaired cadaveric knees, the MPFC footprint was exposed on the medial femur, and the proximal and distal boundaries of the footprint were marked. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the knee were obtained and analyzed using Image J. The proximal boundary corresponding to the MQTFL, the MPFC midpoint, and distal boundary corresponding to the MPFL were described radiographically and compared for differences in position. Results: The proximal MQTFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.6 mm anterior (P = .013) and 5.2 ± 1.8 mm proximal to the MPFC midpoint (P <.001), whereas the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.7 mm posterior (P = .012) and 5.9 ± 1.1 mm distal to the radiographic MPFC midpoint (P <.001). The radiographic point corresponding to the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.9 mm posterior (P = .011) and 11.1 ± 2.3 mm distal to the radiographic point of the proximal MQTFL footprint (P <.001). When using the point of intersection of the posterior cortical line and the proximal posterior condyle as a reference, 91.6% of all points correlating to the MQTFL, MPFC midpoint and MPFL, were within 10 mm in any direction from this radiographic landmark. Conclusions: On fluoroscopic imaging, the proximal MQTFL and distal MPFL fibers had significantly different radiographic positions from the MPFC midpoint on the femur. These findings should be considered when reconstructing specific components of the MPFC. Clinical Relevance: As fluoroscopy is often used intraoperatively to guide graft placement, our findings may serve as a reference when differentiating the locations of the MPFL vs MQTFL on the femur for anatomic reconstruction.
AB - Purpose: To report the radiographic landmarks for the medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) footprint on the medial femur and describe the difference between the radiographic positions corresponding to the medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament (MQTFL) and medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fibers. Methods: In 8 unpaired cadaveric knees, the MPFC footprint was exposed on the medial femur, and the proximal and distal boundaries of the footprint were marked. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the knee were obtained and analyzed using Image J. The proximal boundary corresponding to the MQTFL, the MPFC midpoint, and distal boundary corresponding to the MPFL were described radiographically and compared for differences in position. Results: The proximal MQTFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.6 mm anterior (P = .013) and 5.2 ± 1.8 mm proximal to the MPFC midpoint (P <.001), whereas the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.7 mm posterior (P = .012) and 5.9 ± 1.1 mm distal to the radiographic MPFC midpoint (P <.001). The radiographic point corresponding to the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.9 mm posterior (P = .011) and 11.1 ± 2.3 mm distal to the radiographic point of the proximal MQTFL footprint (P <.001). When using the point of intersection of the posterior cortical line and the proximal posterior condyle as a reference, 91.6% of all points correlating to the MQTFL, MPFC midpoint and MPFL, were within 10 mm in any direction from this radiographic landmark. Conclusions: On fluoroscopic imaging, the proximal MQTFL and distal MPFL fibers had significantly different radiographic positions from the MPFC midpoint on the femur. These findings should be considered when reconstructing specific components of the MPFC. Clinical Relevance: As fluoroscopy is often used intraoperatively to guide graft placement, our findings may serve as a reference when differentiating the locations of the MPFL vs MQTFL on the femur for anatomic reconstruction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126790735&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.01.046
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.01.046
M3 - Article
C2 - 35157967
SN - 0749-8063
VL - 38
SP - 2504
EP - 2510
JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
IS - 8
ER -