Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39989315›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

Landmarks to guide femoral insertion in lateral patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: An in vivo assessment of isometry.

Miriam R Boot, Sebastiaan A W van de Groes, Esther Tanck, Dennis Janssen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Landmarks to guide femoral insertion in lateral patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: An in vivo assessment of isometry.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Miriam R BootOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0442-1091
Sebastiaan A W van de GroesOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Esther TanckOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3263-0045
Dennis JanssenOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0743-9975

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLateral patellofemoral ligament (LPFL) reconstruction addresses medial patellar instability, but uncertainty regarding the optimal femoral attachment site may affect isometry and increase complication rates. This study aimed to establish landmarks for the femoral attachment of the LPFL graft based on in vivo isometry during active knee extension.

methodsDynamic computed tomography scans of 104 knees from 58 healthy participants were employed to examine flexion-extension movements. Length changes were assessed in approximately 1335 virtual LPFL graft fibres, which extended from the proximal one-third of the patellar height to attachments across the femoral condyle. Four methods were evaluated for achieving (near-)isometric LPFL graft behaviour: three radiographic methods (R1-R3) and one anatomic method (A). Method R1 positioned the femoral attachment at a lateral equivalent of Schöttle's point, Method R2 at the centre of the trochlear groove arc, Method R3 at the centre of the lateral trochlear ridge arc and Method A at a point relative to the lateral epicondyle.

resultsMedian length changes during extension were 7.7 mm (Method R1), 3.4 mm (Method R2), 2.7 mm (Method R3) and 3.0 mm (Method A). Method R3 demonstrated significantly smaller length changes compared to Methods R1 (p < 0.001) and R2 (p < 0.01), while Method A yielded smaller changes than Method R1 (p < 0.001). Notably, Method R1 resulted in continuous LPFL graft tightening throughout knee motion, whereas Methods R2, R3 and A showed initial tightening until 20° flexion, followed by slackening and near-isometric behaviour.

conclusionFemoral graft attachment is best determined at the centre of the lateral trochlear ridge arc (Method R3) or 15.1 mm anterior and 3.4 mm proximal to the lateral epicondyle (Method A). These guidelines help improve surgical precision and minimize complications in LPFL reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Anatomic LandmarksFemurJoint InstabilityLigaments, ArticularPatellofemoral JointPlastic Surgery ProceduresAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleRange of Motion, ArticularTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung Adultdynamic computed tomographyfemoral tunnel positioningin vivoisometrylateral patellofemoral ligament (LPFL)

Identifiers

PMID39989315
PMCPMC12684340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.