Conservative Versus Operative - First Time Patella Dislocations

Conservative Versus Surgical Management of First Time Patella Dislocations

There is no consensus regarding whether rehabilitation or surgical management is best for the management of a primary patellar dislocation. Consequently this prospective randomized controlled aims to compare the incidence of recurrent knee dislocations and patient reported outcomes of patients with primary patellar dislocations managed with surgery (medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction) compared to non-operative management (a standardized rehabilitation protocol, control group).

Study Overview

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Conditions: Patella Dislocation
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: medial patellofemoral reconstruction; Procedure: Non-operative group

Detailed Description

Long term sequalae of first-time patellar dislocations include recurrent knee instability, osteoarthritis, and a decreased quality of life, and yet there is no consensus on the best management for these patients. Despite an increasing trend toward investigating operative vs non-operative management of primary patellar dislocations, scarce level-1 evidence exists comparing the two treatment modalities. Indeed, the few meta-analyses suggesting improved outcomes of operative treatment for first time patellar dislocations mainly utilize retrospective cohort studies. A randomized-controlled trial of 39 patients with primary patellar dislocations with a mean age of 24 (21 operative vs 18 non-operative), found decreased rates of recurrent knee instability after a mean follow up of 44 months (0% in operative vs 35% in non-operative), and a higher Kujala knee score (88.9 in operative vs 70.8 in non-operative; p=0.001). A controlled but non-randomized prospective controlled trial among 69 patients with a mean age of 18, (30 operative vs 39 non-operative), found lower rates of recurrent knee instability after a mean follow up of 24 months (0% in operative vs 20.5% in non-operative and a higher Kujala knee score (86.3 in operative group vs 80.03 in non-operative; p <0.05).The scarce randomized, prospective data investigating the appropriate management in primary patellar dislocations underscores the importance of the current study in providing high-quality evidence to the debate of how to best manage primary patellar dislocations. This study aims to compare the incidence of recurrent knee dislocations and patient reported outcomes of patients with primary patellar dislocations managed with surgery (medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction) compared to non-operative management (a standardized rehabilitation protocol, control group).

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 200
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: David Trofa, MD; Phone Number: 212 305 5974; Email: dpt2103@cumc.columbia.edu

Study Locations

• United States
  • New York
    • New York, New York, United States, 10032
      • Columbia University Irving Medical Center
      • Principal Investigator: David P Trofa, MD
      • Contact: David P Trofa, MD; Phone Number: 212-305-5974; Email: dpt2103@cumc.columbia.edu

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 12 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• age 12 and older
• patients seen by the Columbia University Shoulder Elbow and Sports Medicine Service
• patients who experience a first-time patella dislocation

Exclusion Criteria:

• coexistent ligament injury or osteochondral fracture necessitating acute surgical intervention
• previous knee surgery
• knee instability prior to injury
• inability or unwillingness to adhere to study participate
• lost to follow up

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Operative Group; This group will have surgical procedure called a medial patellofemoral reconstruction where the kneecap is anchored back into its correct position)	Procedure: medial patellofemoral reconstruction; Surgery to correct dislocated (knocked out of place) knee cap. This surgery anchors the kneecap back into the correct position and supports the kneecap.
Active Comparator: Non-operative group; This group will have physical therapy for their knee dislocation by following a specific rehabilitation plan.	Procedure: Non-operative group; Physical therapy by following a specific regimen.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 2 weeks	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 6 weeks	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 3 months	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 3 months
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 6 months	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 6 months
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 1 year	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 1 year
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 2 years	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 2 years
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 5 years	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 5 years
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 10 years	The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point.	Baseline and 10 years
Time to first re-dislocation	Time to first re-dislocation following intervention, measured in weeks	Up to 10 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 2 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 6 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 3 months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 3 months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 6 months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 6 months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 1 year	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 1 Year
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 2 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 2 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 5 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 5 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 10 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function.	Baseline and 10 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 3 Months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 3 Months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 Months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 6 Months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 1 Year	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 1 Year
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 Years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 2 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 5 Years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 5 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 10 Years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression.	Baseline and 10 Years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 weeks	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 3 months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 3 months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 months	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 6 months
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 1 year	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 1 year
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 2 years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 5 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 5 years
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 10 years	A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.	Baseline and 10 years
Percentage of participants who re-dislocate their knee after treatment at each time point within each group	Percentage of group that experienced re-dislocation after treatment starts at each time point	2 weeks 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years
Time to return to full activity or sports for each group	Time from treatment initiation to full return to pre-injury activity levels in each group, measured in weeks	Up to 10 years
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 2 weeks	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 6 weeks	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 3 months	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 3 months
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 6 months	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 6 months
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 1 year	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 1 year
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 2 years	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 2 years
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 5 years	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 5 years
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 10 years	Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes.	Baseline and 10 years
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 2 weeks	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 2 weeks
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 6 weeks	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 3 months	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 3 months
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 6 months	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 6 months
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 1 year	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 1 year
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 2 years	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 2 years
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 5 years	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 5 years
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 10 years	Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.	Baseline and 10 years

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Columbia University
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: David Trofa, MD, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Zheng X, Hu Y, Xie P, Cui M, Ma X, Feng YE, Gu J, Gao S. Surgical medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction versus non-surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation: a prospective controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2019 Jun;43(6):1495-1501. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4243-x. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
• Bitar AC, Demange MK, D'Elia CO, Camanho GL. Traumatic patellar dislocation: nonoperative treatment compared with MPFL reconstruction using patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):114-22. doi: 10.1177/0363546511423742. Epub 2011 Oct 19.
• Xing X, Shi H, Feng S. Does surgical treatment produce better outcomes than conservative treatment for acute primary patellar dislocations? A meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Mar 24;15(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01634-5.
• Liu Z, Yi Q, He L, Yao C, Zhang L, Lu F, Zhang X, Wu M, Geng B, Xia Y, Jiang J. Comparing Nonoperative Treatment, MPFL Repair, and MPFL Reconstruction for Patients With Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Sep 28;9(9):23259671211026624. doi: 10.1177/23259671211026624. eCollection 2021 Sep.
• Mackay ND, Smith NA, Parsons N, Spalding T, Thompson P, Sprowson AP. Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction for Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014 Aug 8;2(8):2325967114544021. doi: 10.1177/2325967114544021. eCollection 2014 Aug.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Estimated): September 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): September 1, 2032
• Study Completion (Estimated): September 1, 2032

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: September 4, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 7, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): September 9, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): September 22, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 16, 2025
• Last Verified: September 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Musculoskeletal Diseases; Wounds and Injuries; Joint Diseases; Leg Injuries; Knee Injuries; Joint Dislocations; Patellar Dislocation
• Other Study ID Numbers: AAAU0964

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No