Skip to main content
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2025 Aug 16;17(8):e90258. doi: 10.7759/cureus.90258

Outcomes of Allograft Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Under 18: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Javier I Gonzalez Sr 1,2,, Maximiliano Espinosa 1, Gonzalo De La Fuente 1, Rodrigo Donoso 1, Hector Cifuentes 1
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC12436664  PMID: 40964548

Abstract

Introduction: Patellar instability in pediatric patients often requires surgical stabilization. Allograft use in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) remains controversial due to concerns derived from anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) literature.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 35 patients under 18 years old who underwent MPFLR with allografts between 2019 and 2022. The primary outcome was recurrent dislocation. Secondary outcomes included reoperations and complications.

Results: One (2.8%) patient had a recurrent dislocation. Six (17.1%) patients experienced complications, with only one requiring revision surgery.

Conclusion: Allograft MPFLR appears to be a safe and effective option for patellar instability in pediatric patients, with a low rate of failure and complications.

Keywords: adolescent knee, allograft, mpflr, patella alta, patellar instability, pediatric knee, pediatric orthopedics

Introduction

Recurrent patellar instability represents a significant orthopedic concern in pediatric patients, often necessitating surgical intervention to restore stability and mitigate the risk of recurrent dislocation [1,2]. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is the current standard procedure for addressing patellar dislocation [3], including or not additional procedures in individuals presenting with predisposing anatomical abnormalities, such as patella alta, increased tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, and genu valgum [4,5] in what is known as treatment a la carte [6]. Current technique uses autograft harvested from hamstring tendons (gracilis or semitendinosus), which have shown consistent good and excellent results regarding outcomes such as return to sports, re-dislocation rates, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) [7], but is usually associated with donor site morbidity, including higher pain scores postoperatively [8].

Historically, the utilization of allografts in ligamentous reconstructions around the knee, especially in pediatric populations, has been associated with elevated complication rates, most notably in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions [9]. Complications commonly associated with the use of allografts in younger patients include high re-tear rates leading to a high reintervention risk, among others [10]. This is why the general consensus recommends against the use of allografts in ACL reconstructions; however, empirical evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of allografts in MPFLR remains scarce [2].

This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of MPFLR employing allografts in patients under 18 years of age, with a specific focus on failure rates, reoperations, and postoperative complications. We hypothesize that allografts constitute a safe and efficacious alternative for MPFLR in the pediatric population.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at our center, encompassing pediatric patients who underwent MPFLR with allografts between 2019 and 2022. Eligibility criteria included individuals younger than 18 years who had undergone surgical intervention for recurrent patellar dislocation. We excluded patients with prior patellar stabilization surgeries, systemic joint disorders, or inadequate follow-up data. Allografts used for reconstruction included the peroneus longus and semitendinosus tendons.

All MPFLR were performed using an anatomical technique with either peroneus longus or semitendinosus allografts. Femoral fixation was achieved with an interference screw, while patellar fixation was performed using two suture anchors. In skeletally immature patients with open physes, femoral tunnels were placed distal to the physis under fluoroscopic guidance to avoid growth plate injury, and in some cases, fixation was performed to the adductor tendon instead. No patients in this cohort presented with severe genu valgum requiring guided growth. Concomitant procedures, such as tibial tubercle osteotomy or lateral release, were performed when clinically indicated based on TT-TG distance or patellar tilt.

Data were collected from patient records and images by one orthopedic surgeon and one resident, and their findings were compared.

Demographic and clinical data, including age, sex, anatomical indices (Caton-Deschamps index, Insall-Salvati ratio, and TT-TG distance), and skeletal maturity indicators (presence of open physes), were meticulously documented. Surgical specifics, including graft type, fixation methodology, and concurrent procedures (e.g., tibial tubercle osteotomy and lateral release), were also recorded.

The primary outcome variable was failure rate, understood as recurrent postoperative patellar dislocation. Secondary outcomes included reoperation incidence and the occurrence of complications such as symptomatic hardware, overconstraint, and infection.

Descriptive analysis was employed to summarize patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages, while continuous variables were presented as medians and ranges. This study was approved by our institutional ethics committee. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and there was no funding for this work.

This study adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Results

A total of 35 patients (12 male patients and 23 female patients) were included in the study cohort. The mean age at the time of surgery was 15.2 years (range: 11-17 years). The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months (range: 0.5-44 months) (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic and Surgical Characteristics of the Study Population.

Note: Data are presented as numbers and percentages (number (%)) or mean ± SD (range), as appropriate. No statistical comparisons were performed, as this is a descriptive study.

SD: standard deviation, ATT: anterior tibial tubercle

Characteristic Subgroup Statistical representation
Total patients included 35 Number
Sex: male 12 (32.4%) Number (%)
Sex: female 23 (67.6%) Number (%)
Age (years) 15.2 ± 1.7 (11-17) Mean ± SD (range)
Follow-up (months) 13.2 ± 9.5 (0.5-44) Mean ± SD (range)
Laterality: right 15 (42.8%) Number (%)
Laterality: left 20 (57.1%) Number (%)
Concurrent procedure: osteochondral fixation 3 (8.5%) Number (%)
Concurrent procedure: ATT osteotomy 11 (31.4%) Number (%)

Anatomical assessments (Table 2) revealed a mean Caton-Deschamps index of 1.23, with 20 (57.1%) patients diagnosed with patella alta (mean index: 1.36). The mean Insall-Salvati ratio was 1.19, and the mean TT-TG distance was 19.5 mm, with 17 (48.6%) patients exhibiting pathological TT-TG values. Six (17.14%) patients had open physes, indicative of skeletal immaturity, while nine (25.71%) patients presented with genu valgum. Skeletal maturity was assessed using left-hand and wrist radiographs, and lower limb alignment was evaluated with standing full-length lower limb radiographs.

Table 2. Anatomical Characteristics of the Study Population.

Note: Data are presented as numbers and percentages (number (%)) or mean ± SD, as appropriate. No statistical comparisons were performed, as this is a descriptive study.

SD: standard deviation, TT-TG: tibial tubercle-trochlear groove

Characteristic Value Statistical representation
Patella alta 20 (57.1%) Number (%)
Caton-Deschamps index 1.23 ± 0.20 Mean ± SD
Insall-Salvati index 1.19 ± 0.16 Mean ± SD
TT-TG distance 20 ± 3.44 mm Mean ± SD
Altered TT-TG (>20 mm) 17 (48.5%) Number (%)
Open physes 6 (17.14%) Number (%)
Genu valgum 9 (25.71%) Number (%)

Surgical outcomes and complications

Failure Rate

Only one (2.8%) patient experienced a recurrent postoperative patellar dislocation. No cases necessitated reoperation for residual instability. This patient was 13 years old, had open physes, and underwent isolated MPFLR with adductor tendon loop fixation.

Complications

Postoperative complications occurred in six (17.1%) patients. The most common was symptomatic hardware, reported in two (5.6%) cases. In both cases, the hardware corresponded to screws from concomitant tibial tubercle osteotomies. One patient developed overconstraint, necessitating revision surgery. No evidence of graft rupture, deep infection, or significant donor site morbidity were observed.

Reoperation Rate

Excluding the singular revision surgery for overconstraint, no additional reoperations were required.

Discussion

The use of allografts in pediatric MPFLR has been a subject of clinical debate due to concerns regarding graft incorporation, immunogenic response, and long-term stability [11,12]. Prior studies focusing on ACL reconstruction in young patients have documented elevated failure rates associated with allografts, thereby engendering skepticism regarding their applicability in MPFLR [13-15]. However, the findings of the present study indicate that allografts can yield low failure and complication rates in MPFLR, presenting a viable alternative to autografts.

There are notable anatomical and structural distinctions between the ACL and the MPFL that likely account for this disparity [16]. Most notably, the ACL is located intra-articular, whereas the MPFL is situated extra-articular. The healing environments for intra-articular and extra-articular ligaments differ substantially [17], with the latter being generally more favorable for effective tissue repair. Consequently, the healing process after MPFLR may resemble that of a collateral ligament reconstruction more closely than that of a cruciate ligament [2].

The advantage of utilizing an allograft is primarily related to the potential complications associated with the donor site, including pain, infection, decreased flexor strength, and even neurological injury [8,18,19]. Nevertheless, certain studies have not demonstrated significant differences in these outcomes when comparing allografts to autografts [2].

Given the observed low recurrence rate of patellar dislocation (2.8%) and the absence of reoperations for instability, allograft MPFLR appears to be an effective surgical modality for pediatric patients with patellar instability. The relatively low complication rate further reinforces the safety profile of this approach. Surgeons may consider the utilization of allografts in scenarios where autograft harvesting is contraindicated or where patient preference necessitates an alternative grafting approach.

Several limitations warrant consideration. The retrospective study design inherently introduces selection and reporting biases. Furthermore, the relatively short follow-up period constrains the assessment of long-term clinical outcomes, such as late-stage graft failure, patellofemoral arthritis, or functional scores. Prospective, longitudinal studies with extended follow-up periods and larger sample sizes are requisite to substantiate these findings.

Conclusions

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction utilizing allografts constitutes a safe and efficacious intervention for pediatric patients presenting with patellar instability. The present study demonstrated a low failure rate (2.8%) and a minimal reoperation incidence, underscoring the clinical reliability of allograft MPFLR. While additional research is necessary to delineate long-term outcomes, the findings suggest that allografts represent a viable and advantageous alternative to autografts in pediatric MPFLR procedures.

Disclosures

Human subjects: Informed consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study.

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author Contributions

Concept and design:  Javier I. Gonzalez Sr.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Javier I. Gonzalez Sr., Maximiliano Espinosa, Gonzalo De La Fuente, Rodrigo Donoso, Hector Cifuentes

Drafting of the manuscript:  Javier I. Gonzalez Sr., Rodrigo Donoso

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Javier I. Gonzalez Sr., Maximiliano Espinosa, Gonzalo De La Fuente, Hector Cifuentes

References

  • 1.Epidemiology of patellofemoral instability injuries among high school athletes in the United States. Mitchell J, Magnussen RA, Collins CL, Currie DW, Best TM, Comstock RD, Flanigan DC. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1676–1682. doi: 10.1177/0363546515577786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft tissue results in similar recurrent dislocation risk and patient-reported outcomes. Flanigan DC, Shemory S, Lundy N, Stitgen M, Long JM, Magnussen RA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28:2099–2104. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05920-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Widespread implementation of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar instability maintains functional outcomes at midterm to long-term follow-up while decreasing complication rates: a systematic review. Stupay KL, Swart E, Shubin Stein BE. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:1372–1380. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Patellofemoral instability: current status and future perspectives. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Vaishya R. J Orthop. 2023;36:49–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.12.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patellofemoral instability in skeletally immature athletes. Hennrikus W, Pylawka T. https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/citation/2013/01160/patellofemoral_instability_in_skeletally_immature.13.aspx. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:176–183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.A la carte menu for recurrent patellar instability (Article in Spanish) Pineda T, Dejour DH. https://revistarelart.com/index.php/revista/article/view/351. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2025:2025. doi: 10.1016/j.recot.2025.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Outcomes after isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for the treatment of recurrent lateral patellar dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schneider DK, Grawe B, Magnussen RA, et al. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2993–3005. doi: 10.1177/0363546515624673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Minimally invasive semitendinosus tendon harvesting from the popliteal fossa versus conventional hamstring tendon harvesting for ACL reconstruction: a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 100 patients. Franz W, Baumann A. Knee. 2016;23:106–110. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort. Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Reinke EK, Spindler KP. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:1534–1540. doi: 10.1177/0363546513490277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, et al. Sports Health. 2011;3:73–81. doi: 10.1177/1941738110386185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Biologic incorporation of allograft anterior cruciate ligament replacements. Jackson DW, Corsetti J, Simon TM. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996:126–133. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199603000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Allograft medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in adolescent patients results in a low recurrence rate of patellar dislocation or subluxation at midterm follow-up. Allahabadi S, Pandya NK. Arthroscopy. 2022;38:128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J, Shaha SS, Raybin SG, Tokish JM, Rowles DJ. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2501–2509. doi: 10.1177/0363546515596406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Comparison of allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft survival in an active adolescent cohort. Engelman GH, Carry PM, Hitt KG, Polousky JD, Vidal AF. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2311–2318. doi: 10.1177/0363546514541935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Risk factors and predictors of subsequent ACL injury in either knee after ACL reconstruction: prospective analysis of 2488 primary ACL reconstructions from the MOON cohort. Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Huston LJ, Spindler KP. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1583–1590. doi: 10.1177/0363546515578836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Influence of graft source and configuration on revision rate and patient-reported outcomes after MPFL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Weinberger JM, Fabricant PD, Taylor SA, Mei JY, Jones KJ. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:2511–2519. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4006-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.The central ACL defect as a model for failure of intra-articular healing. Spindler KP, Murray MM, Devin C, Nanney LB, Davidson JM. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:401–406. doi: 10.1002/jor.20074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Does gracilis preservation matter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review. Sharma A, Flanigan DC, Randall K, Magnussen RA. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:1165–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Injury to the main branch of the saphenous nerve following hamstring tendon graft harvesting: a report of 3 cases. Flaherty A, Escalera C, Haeberle H, Fealy S, Lee SK. HSS J. 2025;21:107–112. doi: 10.1177/15563316241230285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES