Background: Patella instability and medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) injury are frequently encountered in pediatric patients. MPFL reconstruction is often chosen to treat this condition with good results; however, no consensus has been reached about which graft or technique to use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in graft survivorship, clinical outcomes (assessed with Kujala scores), and cost between autograft and allograft usage in MPFL reconstruction in pediatric patients. Methods: In this retrospective review of patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction between 2012-2015, autograft gracilis tendon was used for Group 1, and allograft gracilis tendon was used for Group 2. Outcomes were graft survivorship, postoperative Kujala scores, operative time, costs, graft size, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance. Results: Fifty-six patients were included in this study, 21 in Group 1 and 35 in Group 2. No differences in age, sex, or chronicity were seen between the groups. Patients in Group 1 had longer operative times (134.5 minutes vs 97.3 minutes, P=0.0002), higher rates of graft failure (28.6% vs 0%, P=0.0037), and lower Kujala scores (80.3 vs 92.1, P=0.0032) compared to Group 2. All graft failures occurred in patients with chronic patella dislocations and occurred an average of 13.8 months postoperatively. Overall, autograft was costlier than allograft because of the cost of reoperation. Conclusion: This study supports the use of allograft for chronic patellar instability because of improved graft survivorship and clinical outcome scores, as well as the lower cost and reoperation rate.

whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract