Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jun;50(7):1867-1875.
doi: 10.1177/03635465221090644. Epub 2022 Apr 19.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Patella-Stabilizing, Motion-Restricting Knee Brace Versus a Neoprene Nonhinged Knee Brace After a First-Time Traumatic Patellar Dislocation

Essi E Honkonen  1   2 , Petri J Sillanpää  2   3 , Aleksi Reito  1 , Heikki Mäenpää  1   2 , Ville M Mattila  1   2   4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Patella-Stabilizing, Motion-Restricting Knee Brace Versus a Neoprene Nonhinged Knee Brace After a First-Time Traumatic Patellar Dislocation

Essi E Honkonen et al. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Background: A traumatic lateral patellar dislocation is a common injury in adolescents and young adults. The majority of first-time dislocations can be treated nonoperatively. Various types of knee braces are used for nonoperative treatment, but evidence on the most preferable bracing method is lacking.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace versus a neoprene nonhinged knee brace for the treatment of a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation at 3 years of follow-up.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: A total of 101 skeletally mature patients with a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation were enrolled in the study. After exclusion criteria were applied, 79 patients with a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation were randomized and allocated into 2 study groups: group A, with a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace (hinged to allow knee range of motion [ROM] of 0°-30°) and group B, with a neoprene nonhinged knee brace (not restricting any knee motion). Both groups received similar physical therapy instructions and were advised to use the brace continuously for 4 weeks. Overall, 64 patients completed the trial.

Results: The redislocation rate in group A was 34.4% (11/32) and in group B it was 37.5% (12/32) (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -26.6% to 20.3%]; P = .794). Patients in group A had less knee ROM than those in group B at 4 weeks (90° vs 115°, respectively; P < .001) and 3 months (125° vs 133°, respectively; P = .028). Patients in group A had more quadriceps muscle atrophy than patients in group B at 4 weeks (24/32 vs 16/32, respectively; P = .048) and 3 months. At 6 months, patients in group B reported better functional outcomes than patients in group A (Kujala score mean difference, 4.6; P = .012), although no clinically relevant difference was found at 3 years.

Conclusion: The use of a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace for 4 weeks after a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation did not result in a statistically significant reduction in redislocations versus a neoprene nonhinged knee brace, although this trial was underpowered to detect more modest differences. Knee immobilization was associated with quadriceps muscle atrophy, less knee ROM, and worse functional outcomes in the first 6 months after the injury.

Registration: NCT01344915 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Keywords: nonoperative treatment; patellar brace; patellar dislocation; recurrent patellofemoral instability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study flowchart. MPFL, medial patellofemoral ligament; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PF, patellofemoral.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(A) Group A: a patella–stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace. The brace is hinged, with knee range of motion restricted to allow 0° to 30° of flexion only. (B) Group B: a nonhinged, nonstabilizing neoprene knee brace.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arendt EA, Askenberger M, Agel J, Tompkins MA. Risk of redislocation after primary patellar dislocation: a clinical prediction model based on magnetic resonance imaging variables. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(14):3385-3390. - PubMed
    1. Arendt EA, England K, Agel J, Tompkins MA. An analysis of knee anatomic imaging factors associated with primary lateral patellar dislocations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(10):3099-3107. - PubMed
    1. Atkin DM, Fithian DC, Marangi KS, et al.. Characteristics of patients with primary acute lateral patellar dislocation and their recovery within the first 6 months of injury. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(4):472-479. - PubMed
    1. Biedert RM, Albrecht S. The patellotrochlear index: a new index for assessing patellar height. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):707-712. - PubMed
    1. Buchner M, Baudendistel B, Sabo D, Schmitt H. Acute traumatic primary patellar dislocation: long–term results comparing conservative and surgical treatment. Clin J Sport Med. 2005;15(2):62-66. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources