
Learn the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction using Healicoil Anchors (Smith and Nephew) surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction using Healicoil Anchors (Smith and Nephew) surgical procedure.
This is a presentation of the reconstruction of a medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) in a 31 year old female with recurrent patellar instability. The gracilis hamstring tendon is used and fixed using 4.5mm Healicoil PEEK bone anchors on the patellar side and Smith and Nephew Biosure PK interference screw in the femur.
The technique includes:
the use of pre-operative arthroscopy to assess tracking and patellar articular integrity. This case shows very clearly that the knee needs to be assessed “dry” to truly reflect patellar in vivo tracking
the use of an image intensifier to help identify the correct position for the isometric femoral tunnel
The operation utilises a graft to replace a damaged native medial patellofemoral ligament, a distinct thickening within the medial retinaculum. Recurrent lateral dislocation often leads to rupture and/or stretching of this defunctioned structure and risks further dislocations. Each episode is not only very uncomfortable but leads to long term irreversible chondral damage to the patellofemoral joint. Various options for reconstruction are available (listed below) but my preference is the hamstring graft as, in my hands it is a reproducible operation leading to excellent reduction in recurrent dislocation. The size, thickness and consistency of the gracilis tendon is the closest option to a direct replacement of the native MPFL. The graft acts as a check-rein to further dislocation. Soft tissue knee surgeons are quite familiar with hamstring harvesting from ACL reconstruction.
The use of Smith and Nephew Healicoil (PEEK) anchors carry several potential advantages including:
avoiding drilling across the patella, thereby reducing the potential risk of patella fracture
the fact that the modulus of elasticity of PEEK is close to bone reduces the risk of creating a stress riser in the patella
excellent demonstrable pull out strength of this implant
ease of use of the Healicoil.

A recent 21 year population based study by Sanders et al demonstrated an incidence of 23.2 per 100000 of lateral dislocation (Sanders TL, Pareek A, Hewett TE, Stuart MJ, Dahm DL, Krych AJ. Incidence of First-Time Lateral Patellar Dislocation: A 21-Year Population-Based Study.Sports Health. 2018 Mar/Apr;10(2):146-151.)
MPFL reconstruction is a powerful technique used in the stabilisation of the patellofemoral joint. It is often used in conjunction with realignment of the extensor mechanism as described by Mr James Murray on OrthOracle’s https://www.orthoracle.com/library/patella-stabilisation-tibial-tubercle-osteotomy-and-medial-patellofemoral-ligament-reconstruction/
It is vital for the surgeon to assess all factors contributing to the individual patient’s patellar instability. These include:
traumatic versus non-traumatic initial “first-episode” dislocation – as we recognise in the shoulder these two conditions have very different aetiologies and require different approaches. It is more likely that the non-traumatic dislocators have anatomical predispositions to instability as outlined below
systemic hyperlaxity including soft tissue disorders (e.g. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome)
persistent femoral and/or tibial malrotation
trochlear dysplasia
increased tibial tubercle offset
patellar alta – increased height of the patellar secondary to long patellar tendon
Furthermore the consequences of the dislocations must be assessed, including damage to the retropatellar and trochlear articular surfaces, MPFL rupture and medial retincular stretching.
In this case all these assessment were made using a careful history, examination and appropriate investigations.
Symptoms and assessment
The patient presented with a 5 year history of unilateral patellar dislocation following a traumatic event in the sports arena. Despite a course of intensive physiotherapy her instability symptoms did not settle. Over the period of 5 years the patient suffered in excess of 5 further dislocations.
She also gave a history of pain and occasional swelling. The concern with these symptoms are longstanding damage to the articular cartilage in the patellofemoral joint, which despite not being evident on the MRI scan, warranted assessment with the arthroscope at the time of reconstruction surgery.
In the acute setting the surgeon must be aware of the potential of osteochondral fragments being chipped of the patella or the troclear at the time of dislocation / relocation. The patient may complain of loose body symptoms including locking and giving way. Some patients even see or feel the fragment moving around.
Overall limb alignment is assessed with the patient standing. Patients with a coronal valgus deformity are at increased risk of lateral patellar tracking and therefore patellar dislocation. I have performed distal femoral varus osteotomies for patients with recurrent patellar instability and significant isolated valgus coronal deformity (i.e. no rotational element). Assessment includes foot position.
Generalised laxity is assessed according the Beighton score:
1. Passive dorsiflexion and hyperextension of the fifth MCP joint beyond 90°
2. Passive apposition of the thumb to the flexor aspect of the forearm
3. Passive hyperextension of the elbow beyond 10°
4. Passive hyperextension of the knee beyond 10°
5. Active forward flexion of the trunk with the knees fully extended so that the palms of the hands rest flat on the floor
1, 2, 3 and 4 are assessed on both left and right sides. Each element is given a score of 1 if present (0 if absent) giving a total out of 9. Although there is debate on the definition of hyperlaxity based on this scoring system a score of greater than 5 is highly suggestive.
The knee is assessed for swelling and concomitant injury. Further detail of the assessment of the knee itself is explained in the detail of the operation.
Investigations
Xray
CT scan
MRI
Long-leg alignment views
Operative alternatives
Assessment must include the need for tibial tubercle transfers in addition to MPFL reconstruction
Lateral release
Medial plication procedures
MPFL reconstruction using other grafts:
quads tendon
artificial grafts (e.g. lars ligament) especially in patients with connective tissue disorders such as Ehlers-Danlos
Non-operative alternatives
All cases require targetted physiotherapy prior to considering surgery, and certainly is the mainstay treatment for first-time and some repeated patellar dislocations.
Contraindications
Active infection
Patients with poor compliance with post-operative rehab
Although not true contra-indications the surgeon must ensure that all factors for patellar dislocation have been considered before proceeding to an isolated MPFL reconstruction as failure rates would expected to be higher in e.g. trochlear dysplasia, connective tissue disorders and high tibial tubercle offset

Set up includes:
high thigh tourniquet
antibiotics at induction
arthroscopy stack
side support and foot plate / sand bag
image intensifier
bone anchors
interference screw
ACL set (to harvest and prepare the graft; ream the femoral tunnel)

The wool and crepe dressings can be reduced after 48 hours but the adherent dressings are kept in site until 14 days, at which point the sutures are removed. It is imperative that the wounds are kept dry.
Once on the ward the physiotherapist can commence passive and supportive active range. Provided the patient recovers early quads recovery no brace is required. However if the patient does not have good static quads control a Range-of-Motion (ROM) brace can be applied with no limit to range. Early quads recovery is key to successful progression through rehab.
If the patient is not fully weightbearing compression stockings with clexane 40mg is used until fully mobile.
Active range should be pushed from the off. As the reconstruction is a checkrein there should be no stress across the fixation with normal activity. Failure to recover good VMO control will leave the reconstruction vulnerable if the patient suffers patellar instability hence the early unrestricted commencement of physio.

The use of image intensifier has improved the consistency of finding the isometric position of the femoral tunnel in my practice. It is well described in the following paper:
John Redfern, Ganesh Kamath and Robert Burks. Anatomical Confirmation of the Use of Radiographic Landmarks in Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2010 38: 293-297.
An excellent “current concepts” review of MPFL reconstruction was written up in the article below including differing techniques of fixation:
James Bicos, John P. Fulkerson and Andrew Amis. Current Concepts Review: The Medial Patellofemoral Ligament. Am J Sports Med 2007 35: 484-492.
Howells et al’s series of 219 isolated MPFL reconstructions showed no recurrent dislocations at an average of 16 months:
Howells NR, Barnett AJ, Ahearn N, Ansari A, Eldridge JD. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: a prospective outcome assessment of a large single centre series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1202-8.
Reference
- orthoracle.com














































