Total knee replacement performed with either a mini-midvastus or a standard approach: A prospective randomised clinical and radiological trial

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 90, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 584-591

  Karachalios, Th ^a   Giotikas, D ^a   Roidis, N ^a   Poultsides, L ^a   Bargiotas, K ^a   Malizos, K N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HIP RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KNEE FUNCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OXFORD KNEE SCORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 43649102586     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B5.20122     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Chauhan SK, Norris M, Bonutti P. MIS total knee arthroplasty: minimally invasive surgery or more information soon. Knee 2006;13:417-18.
2. Callaghan JJ, Warth LC, Liu SS, Hozack WJ, Klein GR. Internet promotion of MIS and CAOS in total knee arthroplasty by knee society members. Clin Orthop 2006;452:97-101.
3. Archibeck KJ, White RE. What's new in adult reconstructive knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004;86-A:1839-49.
4. Price A, Webb J, Topf H, et al. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:970-6.
5. Argenson JA, Flecher X. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2004;11:341-7.
6. Rees JL, Price AJ, Breard DJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 2004;11:363-7.
7. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop 2004;428:68-73.
8. Laskin RS. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop 2005;440:54-9.
9. Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongkukakorn A, et al. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop 2004;428:74-81.
10. Pagnano MW, Meneghini RM. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty with an optimized subvastus approach. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:22-6.
11. Tria AJ, Coon TM. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop 2003;416:185-90.
12. Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: the early clinical experience. Clin Orthop 2005;440:67-76.
13. Bonutti PM, Neal DJ, Kester MA. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty using the suspended leg technique. Orthopedics 2003;26:899-903.
14. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M, Ragland PS, Kester M. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004;86-A(Suppl 2):26-32.
15. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, Kester MA. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a 10 feature evolutionary approach. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:217-26.
16. Dalury DF, Dennis DA. Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop 2005;440:77-81.
17. Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ, et al. Clinical experience using a minimally invasive surgical approach for total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective randomised study compared to a standard approach. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:8-13.
18. Chen AF, Alan RK, Redziniak DE, Tria AJ. Quadriceps sparing total knee replacement: the initial experience with results at two to four years. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:1448-53.
19. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Sensi L. Quadriceps sparing versus mini-subvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2006;452:106-11.
20. Davies AP. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee 2002;9:261-6.
21. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 1989;248:13-14.
22. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80-B:63-9.
23. Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: data from the national joint registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89-B:893-900.
24. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop 1989;248:9-12.
25. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences. Second ed. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1988.
26. Buechel FF. Long term follow-up after mobile bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2002;404:40-50.
27. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1997;345:79-86.
28. Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM, Ritter MA. Long-term follow-up of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 2002;404:34-9.
29. Rand J, Ilstrup DM. Survivorship analysis of total knee arthroplasty: cumulative rates of survival of 9200 total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1991;73-A:397-409.
30. Oliver MC, Keast-Butler OD, Hinves BL, Shepperd JA. A hydroxyapatite-coated Insall-Burstein II total knee replacement: 11-year results. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2005;87-B:478-82.
31. Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2005;87-B:1073-6.
32. Tai CC, Cross MJ. Five- to 12-year follow-up of a hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless total knee replacement in young, active patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2006;88-B:1158-63.
33. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:740-7.
34. Dickstein R, Heffes Y, Shabtai El, Markowitz E. Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly: patients' self-appraisal 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Gerontology 1998;44:201-10.
35. Dalury DF, Jiranek W, Pierson J, Pearson SE. The long-term outcome of total knee patients with moderate loss of motion. J Knee Surg 2003;16:215-20.
36. Schurman DJ, Parker JN, Ornstein D. Total condylar knee replacement: a study influencing range of motion as late as two years after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1985;67-A:1006-14.
37. Scuderi GR, Tenholder M, Capeci C. Surgical approaches in mini-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2004;428:61-7.
38. Goble EM, Justin DF. Minimally invasive total knee replacement: principles and techniques. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:235-40.
39. Kim YH, Kim JS, Kim DY. Clinical outcome and rate of complications after primary total knee replacement performed with quadriceps sparing or standard arthrotomy. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89-B:467-70.
40. Sikorski JM, Blythe MC. Learning the vagaries of computer-assisted total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2005;87-B:903-10.
41. Pitto RP, Hraydon AJ, Bradley L, et al. Accuracy of a computer-assisted navigation system for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:601-5.
42. Seon JK, Song EK. Navigation-assisted less invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a randomised prospective trial. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:777-82.
43. Hart R, Janecek M, Cizmár I, et al. Minimally invasive and navigated implantation for total knee arthroplasty: x-ray analysis and early clinical results. Orthopade 2006;35:552-7 (in German).
44. Chauhan S, Falaz F, van Steijn M, et al. A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive computer assisted total knee arthroplasty (MICA TKA) versus a conventional computer navigated surgical technique (Cons). Procs EESKA 2006.
45. Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ. Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at two years. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89-B:477-80.
46. DiGioia AM 3rd, Blendea S, Jaramaz B. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery: minimally invasive hip and knee reconstruction. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:183-90.
47. Walter F, Haynes MB, Markel DC. A randomized prospective study evaluating the effect of patellar eversion on the early functional outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:509-14.
48. Roidis NT, Karachalios TS, Malizos KN, McPherson EJ. Incision stretching in primary TKA: what is the real length of our approach? Orthopedics 2007;30:397-8.
49. Tria AJ Jr. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the importance of instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:227-34.
50. Dorr LD, Thomas D, Long WT, Polatin PB, Sirianni LE. Psychological reasons for patients preferring minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2007;458:94-100.