Minimally invasive midvastus versus standard parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

San-Zhong Xu, Xiang-Jin Lin, Xiang Tong, Xuan-Wei Wang, San-Zhong Xu, Xiang-Jin Lin, Xiang Tong, Xuan-Wei Wang

Abstract

Objective: Minimally invasive midvastus approach (mini-midvastus) has been widely used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the clinical effects still remains controversial. This meta-analysis was based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to quantitatively analyze the clinical efficacy of mini-midvastus versus standard parapatellar approach in TKA.

Methods: This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search for the eligible RCTs was carried out in the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers independently completed the study selection, data extraction, and the assessment of methodological quality. Meta-analysis was conducted by the RevMan 5.2 software.

Results: A total of 18 RCTs (937 patients with 1093 TKAs) published from 2007 to 2013 were included. The meta-analysis suggested that the mini-midvastus approach significantly improved knee range of motion (ROM) and decreased visual analog score (VAS) at postoperative 1-2 weeks (p<0.05), and there were no statistical differences in terms of knee society score (KSS) (6 weeks to 1 year), VAS (6 weeks to 6 months), ROM (6 weeks to 6 months), lateral retinacular release, blood loss, straight leg raise, hospital stay and postoperative complications between the mini-midvastus and standard parapatellar approach (p>0.05). However, the operative time was significantly longer when performing the mini-midvastus group than the parapartellar approach (p<0.05).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that compared with the standard parapatellar approach, the mini-midvastus approach had early advantages in the VAS and ROM, but had the disadvantage in the operative time.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic study Level I.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow chart of literature screening.
Figure 1. Flow chart of literature screening.

References

    1. Costa CR, Johnson AJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA, Bonutti PM (2013) Critical review of minimally invasive approaches in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 26: 41–50.
    1. Adams J, Ryall C, Pandyan A, Metcalf C, Stokes M, et al. (2012) Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement in patients with arthritis of the hand: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94: 1305–1312.
    1. Granchi D, Cenni E, Giunti A, Baldini N (2012) Metal hypersensitivity testing in patients undergoing joint replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94: 1126–1134.
    1. Yin ZG, Zhang JB, Kan SL, Wang XG (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities for suspected scaphoid fractures: meta-analysis combined with latent class analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94: 1077–1085.
    1. Guy SP, Farndon MA, Conroy JL, Bennett C, Grainger AJ, et al. (2012) A prospective randomised study of minimally invasive midvastus total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. Knee 19: 866–871.
    1. Chang CH, Yang RS, Chen KH, Liu TK, Chen WC, et al. (2010) Muscle torque in total knee arthroplasty: comparison of subvastus and midvastus approaches. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18: 934–938.
    1. Wegrzyn J, Parratte S, Coleman-Wood K, Kaufman KR, Pagnano MW (2013) The John Insall award: no benefit of minimally invasive TKA on gait and strength outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471: 46–55.
    1. Varela-Egocheaga JR, Suarez-Suarez MA, Fernandez-Villan M, Gonzalez-Sastre V, Varela-Gomez JR, et al. (2010) Minimally invasive subvastus approach: improving the results of total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468: 1200–1208.
    1. Alshryda S, Sarda P, Sukeik M, Nargol A, Blenkinsopp J, et al. (2011) Tranexamic acid in total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93: 1577–1585.
    1. Tria AJ Jr (2007) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36: 6–7.
    1. Zhang Z, Zhu W, Gu B, Zhu L, Chen C (2013) Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133: 389–395.
    1. Pongcharoen B, Yakampor T, Charoencholvanish K (2013) Patellar tracking and anterior knee pain are similar after medial parapatellar and midvastus approaches in minimally invasive TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471: 1654–1660.
    1. Heekin RD, Fokin AA (2013) Mini-Midvastus Versus Mini-Medial Parapatellar Approach for Minimally Invasive Total Knee Arthroplasty: Outcomes Pendulum Is at Equilibrium. J Arthroplasty doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.016.
    1. Cho KY, Kim KI, Umrani S, Kim SH (2013) Better quadriceps recovery after minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2556-2.
    1. Kim JG, Lee SW, Ha JK, Choi HJ, Yang SJ, et al. (2011) The effectiveness of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty to preserve quadriceps strength: a randomized controlled trial. Knee 18: 443–447.
    1. Karachalios T, Giotikas D, Roidis N, Poultsides L, Bargiotas K, et al. (2008) Total knee replacement performed with either a mini-midvastus or a standard approach: a prospective randomised clinical and radiological trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90: 584–591.
    1. Dalury DF, Snow RG, Adams MJ (2008) Electromyographic evaluation of the midvastus approach. J Arthroplasty 23: 136–140.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 1006–1012.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: . Accessed September 2, 2013.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21: 1539–1558.
    1. Varnell MS, Bhowmik-Stoker M, McCamley J, Jacofsky MC, Campbell M, et al. (2011) Difference in stair negotiation ability based on TKA surgical approach. J Knee Surg 24: 117–123.
    1. Lee DH, Choi J, Nha KW, Kim HJ, Han SB (2011) No difference in early functional outcomes for mini-midvastus and limited medial parapatellar approaches in navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19: 66–73.
    1. Nestor BJ, Toulson CE, Backus SI, Lyman SL, Foote KL, et al.. (2010) Mini-midvastus vs standard medial parapatellar approach: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study in patients undergoing bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 25: : 5–11, 11 e11.
    1. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Noriega-Fernandez A, Suarez-Vazquez A (2010) Total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision or a standard incision. Similar results at six months follow-up. Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders 11: 27.
    1. Karpman RR, Smith HL (2009) Comparison of the early results of minimally invasive vs standard approaches to total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24: 681–688.
    1. Juosponis R, Tarasevicius S, Smailys A, Kalesinskas RJ (2009) Functional and radiological outcome after total knee replacement performed with mini-midvastus or conventional arthrotomy: controlled randomised trial. Int Orthop 33: 1233–1237.
    1. Fu Pei-liang, Li Xiao-hua, Wu Yu-li, Xie Qing-yun, Sun Jiu-yi, et al. (2008) Comparison of midvastus and standard medial parapatellar approaches in total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering 12: 1793–1796.
    1. Walter F, Haynes MB, Markel DC (2007) A randomized prospective study evaluating the effect of patellar eversion on the early functional outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22: 509–514.
    1. Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ, Purtill J, Sharkey PF, et al. (2007) Clinical experience using a minimally invasive surgical approach for total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective randomized study compared to a standard approach. J Arthroplasty 22: 8–13.
    1. Chin PL, Foo LS, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2007) Randomized controlled trial comparing the radiologic outcomes of conventional and minimally invasive techniques for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22: 800–806.
    1. Alcelik I, Sukeik M, Pollock R, Misra A, Naguib A, et al. (2012) Comparing the mid-vastus and medial parapatellar approaches in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of short term outcomes. Knee 19: 229–236.
    1. Ozkoc G, Hersekli MA, Akpinar S, Ozalay M, Uysal M, et al. (2005) Time dependent changes in patellar tracking with medial parapatellar and midvastus approaches. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13: 654–657.
    1. Bathis H, Perlick L, Blum C, Luring C, Perlick C, et al. (2005) Midvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blinded study on early rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13: 545–550.
    1. Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB, Ritter MA (1999) Comparison of the midvastus muscle-splitting approach with the median parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14: 29–32.
    1. Dalury DF, Jiranek WA (1999) A comparison of the midvastus and paramedian approaches for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14: 33–37.
    1. Kelly MJ, Rumi MN, Kothari M, Parentis MA, Bailey KJ, et al. (2006) Comparison of the vastus-splitting and median parapatellar approaches for primary total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88: 715–720.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa