III.

Conservative treatment including physiotherapy and bracing is the mainstay in the treatment of symptomatic spondylolysis and low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in fine athletes. If consequent treatment fails, the operative treatment (pars repair and short fusion) is decided. Return to play following surgery varies from 6 to 12 months with prohibition in collision sports. Return to play is mostly depended on specific sport activity.

Aims Trochlear dysplasia is a significant risk factor for patellofemoral instability. The Dejour classification is currently considered the standard for classifying trochlear dysplasia, but numerous studies have reported poor reliability on both plain radiography and MRI. The severity of trochlear dysplasia is important to establish in order to guide surgical management. We have developed an MRI-specific classification system to assess the severity of trochlear dysplasia, the Oswestry-Bristol Classification (OBC). This is a four-part classification system comprising normal, mild, moderate, and severe to represent a normal, shallow, flat, and convex trochlear, respectively. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the OBC and compare it with that of the Dejour classification. Methods Four observers (two senior and two junior orthopaedic surgeons) independently assessed 32 CT and axial MRI scans for trochlear dysplasia and classified each according to the OBC and the Dejour classification systems. Assessments were repeated following a four-week interval. The inter- and intraobserver agreement was determined by using Fleiss’ generalization of Cohen’s kappa statistic and S-statistic nominal and linear weights. Results The OBC showed fair-to-good interobserver agreement and good-to-excellent intraobserver agreement (mean kappa 0.68). The Dejour classification showed poor interobserver agreement and fair-to-good intraobserver agreement (mean kappa 0.52) Conclusion The OBC can be used to assess the severity of trochlear dysplasia. It can be applied in clinical practice to simplify and standardize surgical decision-making in patients with recurrent patella instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):102–107

Purpose The purpose of this study was to measure the improvement in quality of life (QoL) following isolated anatomical double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Methods This is a single-centre, prospective study of 56 consecutive patients (57 knees) who underwent isolated MPFL reconstruction between 2014 and 2017. Functional outcome and QoL were assessed with the Kujala score and the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, respectively. Objective outcomes were obtained through clinical examination at the latest follow-up assessing redislocation rate, patella apprehension test, patellar tilt, pain and range of motion. ResultsThe median Kujala score increased from 60 (range 31-96) to 92 (range 34-100) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). The median EQ-5D index also increased, from 0.69 (range 0.10-1) at baseline to 1 (range 0.16-1) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001), as well as the median EQ-5D VAS from 75 (range 20-95) to 92 (range 40-100) (p < 0.001). Four dimensions of the EQ-5D were signiicantly improved except for the anxiety/depression scores. Female patients reported lower scores at baseline and at latest follow-up, for all three outcomes (Kujala, EQ-5D index, EQ-5D VAS), however there was no evidence that gender negatively impacted on the beneit of surgery. The re-dislocation rate was 0%. Apprehension and patellar tilt test were negative in all patients and no lexion deicit was identiied at latest follow-up. Two patients had tenderness along the reconstruction requiring femoral screw removal in one of them. Conclusions Isolated anatomical double-bundle aperture MPFL reconstruction, ofered signiicantly improved short-term QoL along with excellent functional outcome. Female patients scored lower, but this did not afect the overall outcome. Including QoL tools in the assessment of ligament reconstruction operations, such as the MPFL, can provide more accurate understanding of the overall patient beneit. Level of evidence II.

IV.