Background: Inferior pole patellar sleeve fractures (PSFs) are rare injuries that occur in skeletally immature patients that may be missed or falsely diagnosed as an inferior pole fracture (IPF) or Sinding-Larsen-Johansson syndrome (SLJS). Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare clinical and radiographic features of patients with PSF, IPF, and SLJS. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Retrospective review of skeletally immature patients diagnosed with PSF, IPF, and SLJS between 2011 and 2019 at a single urban academic center was performed. Chart and radiographic review was completed. Between-group differences were assessed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Fisher exact test, as appropriate to variable distributions. Results: In total, 125 patients (82% male) were included, with a mean (SD) age of 10.7 (2) years (16 PSF, 51 IPF, 58 SLJS). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the 3 groups. One hundred percent of the patients with PSF ( P < .001) and IPF ( P < .001) had acute trauma, compared with 24% of patients with SLJS. Fewer patients with PSF had an intact straight leg raise (38%) compared with those with IPF (94%; P < .001) and SLJS (98%; P < .001). Fewer patients with SLJS had knee swelling (41%) compared with those with PSF (93%; P < .001) and IPF (94%; P < .001). More patients with PSF had knee effusion (81%) compared with those with IPF (37%; P = 0.011) and SLJS (3%; P < .001). More patients with SLJS were able to bear weight (88%) compared with those with IPF (12%; P < .001) and PSF (0; P < .001). Radiographically, compared with those with IPF and SLJS, patients with PSFs had increased mean prepatellar swelling (6.1 [ P < .001] and 6.5 [ P < .001] vs 12.9 mm), intra-articular effusion (6.1 [ P = .014] and 4.9 [ P = .001] vs 9.2 mm), maximum fragment size (26 [ P = .004] and 17.7 [ P < .001] vs 45.3 mm), and maximum fragment displacement (1.24 [ P = .002] and 1.45 [ P = .003] vs 13.30 mm), respectively. Compared with those with SLJS (1.10), patients with PSF (1.92; P < .001) and IPF (1.22; P < .001) had patella alta with higher mean Insall-Salvati ratios >1.2. Conclusion: Differences in clinical features such as ability to straight leg raise, knee swelling, knee effusion, ability to bear weight, and radiographic features, such as prepatellar swelling, intra-articular effusion, fragment displacement/size/shape/location, and patellar height, can all be helpful in recognizing rare pediatric inferior patellar pathology, thus increasing efficiency in indicating for higher-level imaging to reach a prompt diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.

Background: Discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) is a rare condition. Patient-reported outcomes using validated instruments are underreported in the literature. DLM outcomes have not been directly compared with nondiscoid meniscus (non-DLM) in adolescent patients. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study sought to analyze the difference in patient characteristics, surgical treatment, and patient-reported outcomes for adolescent patients arthroscopically treated for symptomatic DLM and non-DLM pathology. We hypothesized that DLM and non-DLM patient-reported outcomes would be similar. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of patients aged <18 years with symptomatic DLM and non-DLM pathology was completed between 2015 and 2021 at a single academic institution. Chart reviews for patient characteristics and surgical operative indications and technique were completed. Patient-reported outcome scores were prospectively collected preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Results: Patients in the DLM group (n = 48), when compared with the non-DLM group (n = 45), were younger (12.71 vs 15.78 years, respectively; P < .001) and had lower body mass index (24.53 vs 28.91, respectively; P < .02). Both groups were majority Hispanic and more commonly male (DLM 65% vs non-DLM 60%). All of the DLM patients had surgery on the lateral discoid meniscus (n = 48), whereas the non-DLM group had surgery on the lateral meniscus (n = 37), medial meniscus (n = 7), or both (n = 1). A majority of patients in both groups underwent meniscal repair (DLM 73% and non-DLM 62%), and there was no difference in surgical treatment between groups ( P > .05). A statistically significant improvement was seen in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Physical Activity Questionnaire (PAQ) scores from the preoperative assessment to 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery for both DLM and non-DLM groups ( P < .05). No difference was found in scores between DLM and non-DLM groups, between sexes, or between age groups (<13 years or ≥13 years) ( P > .05). Conclusion: Although patients with DLM were younger and had lower body mass index, the IKDC and PAQ scores were not significantly different between the DLM and non-DLM groups. Both groups showed a significant improvement in scores relative to their preoperative scores. Sex and age did not affect IKDC or PAQ scores.