Purpose To determine the efect of early MPFL reconstruction versus rehabilitation on the rate of recurrent patellar dislocations and functional outcomes in skeletally mature patients with traumatic, irst-time patellar dislocation. Methods Three online databases MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from database inception (1946, 1966, and 1974, respectively) to August 20th, 2021 for literature addressing the management of patients sustaining acute irsttime patellar dislocations. Data on redislocation rates, functional outcomes using the Kujala score, and complication rates were recorded. A meta-analysis was used to pool the mean postoperative Kujala score, as well as calculate the proportion of patients sustaining redislocation episodes using a random efects model. Quality assessment of included studies was performed for all included studies using the MINORS and Detsky scores. Results A total of 19 studies and 1,165 patients were included in this review. The pooled mean redislocation rate in 14 studies comprising 734 patients in the rehabilitation group was 30% (95% CI 25-36%, I 2 = 67%). Moreover, the pooled mean redislocation rate in 5 studies comprising 318 patients undergoing early MPFL reconstruction was 7% (95% CI 2-17%, I 2 = 70%). The pooled mean postoperative Kujala anterior knee pain score in 7 studies comprising 332 patients in the rehabilitation group was 81 (95% CI 78-85, I 2 = 78%), compared to a score of 87 (95% CI 85-89, I 2 = 0%, Fig. 4) in 3 studies comprising 54 patients in the reconstruction group. Conclusion Management of acute irst-time patellar dislocations with MPFL reconstruction resulted in a lower rate of redislocation of 7% in the reconstruction group vs 30% in the rehabilitation group and a higher Kujala score compared to the rehabilitation group. The information this review provides will help surgeons guide their decision to choose early MPFL reconstruction versus rehabilitation when treating patients with irst-time patellar dislocations and may guide future studies on the topic. Level of evidence IV.