Better knee function after surgical repair of acute quadriceps tendon rupture in comparison to acute patellar tendon rupture [La réparation des ruptures aiguës du tendon quadricipital procure une meilleure fonction que celle des ruptures du tendon patellaire]

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in knee function between patients with quadriceps tendon rupture and patellar tendon rupture after acute surgical repair. Our hypothesis was that knee function would be similar between the two groups. Methods: The study population included 24 patients; 13 patients suffered from quadriceps tendon rupture and 11 patients from patellar tendon rupture. All patients underwent acute surgical repair using heavy non-absorbable transosseous sutures; another non-absorbable suture, passed through both retinaculum and around the repaired tendon to augment the repair. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Lysholm, Kujala, and VAS scoring systems. In addition, radiographic evaluation to evaluate patellar height and patello-femoral joint arthritis using Iwano's classification was performed. Results: The average follow-up time was 70.5 months. All patients in the quadriceps tendon group had full range of knee motion while 3 patients (27 %) in the patellar tendon group had reduced knee flexion. Patients in the quadriceps tendon group had a significantly higher Kujala score in comparison to the patellar tendon group (88 vs 73 p = 0.033). No significant differences were identified between the two groups according to the Lysholm scoring system. Patients in the quadriceps tendon group had significantly less pain according to VAS scale (1.2 vs 3.5 p = 0.012). Radiographic evaluation revealed that, two patients from each group showed signs of grade II patello-femoral joint arthritis according to Iwano's classification. Conclusion: Acute surgical repair of quadriceps tendon ruptures provides better knee function, in comparison to the surgical restoration of patellar tendon rupture. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study. © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS