The Effect of C-Arm Position on Femoral Tunnel Placement in Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Background: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is a common treatment for patellar instability. Yet nearly 40% of revisions result from femoral tunnel misplacement. One reason may be the positioning of the C-arm relative to the knee.

Purpose: To assess how the C-arm's position affects femoral MPFL placement when the image receptor is positioned either contralateral or ipsilateral to the operated knee.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Ten human cadaveric knee specimens were dissected, and the femoral MPFL insertion site was identified and marked using a 10-mm eyelet. According to the possible clinical scenarios, true lateral radiographs in 2 different C-arm positions were taken. In the first scenario, the image receptor was on the ipsilateral side, being 5 cm away from the knee with the x-ray beam directed from medial to lateral (ML5). In the second scenario, the image receptor was on the contralateral side, being 25 cm away from the knee with the x-ray beam directed from lateral to medial (LM25). In each radiograph, the eyelet position was recorded and the distance (proximal-distal and anterior-posterior) from the optimal radiographic insertion point according to the literature was determined. Differences between the groups were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and a value of <.05 was considered significant.

Results: The anatomic femoral MPFL insertion in the ML5-position was located a mean of 2.7 ± 2.4 mm proximal and 4.5 ± 5.5 mm anterior to the Schöttle point. This resulted in an absolute distance of 7.2 ± 3.0 mm. In the LM25-position, it was located a mean of -0.7 ± 1.8 mm distal and 3.0 ± 5.3 mm anterior, which resulted in an absolute distance of 5.4 ± 3.2 mm. The ML5 was located more anterior (1.5 ± 2.1 mm) and proximal (3.4 ± 2.4 mm) compared with the LM25 position. Measurements following methods described in the literature significantly differed in both axes in the LM25 view when compared with the ML5 view measurements ( = .005).

Conclusion: Compared with the ipsilateral C-arm position (ML5), the contralateral C-arm position (LM25) showed a smaller range with a lower standard deviation in identifying the femoral MPFL approach across all measurement methods.

Clinical Relevance: When applying the method according to Schöttle et al to locate the femoral MPFL insertion point, it should be noted that in the proximal-distal orientation, the femoral MPFL insertion point is situated proximal to the Blumensaat line in the contralateral view (LM25). In contrast, when using the ipsilateral view (ML5), the femoral MPFL footprint is positioned just distal to the proximal edge of the medial condyle.