A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes following minimally invasive to conventional exposure for total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-7

  Smith, Toby O ^a   King, Jonathan J ^b   Hing, Caroline B ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b NORFOLK AND NORWICH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c ST GEORGE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Incision; Knee; Surgical exposure; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; FRACTURE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOINT STIFFNESS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PERONEUS NERVE PARALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RANGE OF MOTION; REVIEW; SKIN INCISION; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL INFECTION; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WOUND HEALING;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84855237839     PISSN: 09680160     EISSN: 18735800     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.12.001     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Richmond J.C. Surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Med Clin North Am 2009, 93:213-222.
2. Hernandez-Vaquero D., Noriega-Fernandez A., Suarez-Vazquez A. Total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision or a standard incision. Similar results at six months follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:27.
3. Robertsson O., Bizjajeva S., Fenstad A.M., Furnes O., Lidgren L., Mehnert F., et al. Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Acta Orthop 2010, 81:82-89.
4. Dutton A.Q., Yeo S.-J. Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 2):116.
5. Haas S.B., Cook S., Beksac B. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastuas approach. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 428:68-73.
6. King J., Stamper D.L., Schaad D.C., Leopold S.S. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty. Assessment of the learning curve and the postoperative recuperation period. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:1497-1503.
7. Dutton A.Q., Yeo S.J., Yang K.Y., Lo N.N., Chia K.U., Chong H.C. Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:2-9.
8. Chen A.F., Alan R.K., Redziniak D.E., Tria A.J. Quadriceps sparing total knee replacement. The initial experience with results at two to four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88:1448-1453.
9. Dalury D.F., Dennis D.A. Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 440:77-81.
10. Tanavalee A., Thiengwittayaporn S., Itiravivong P. Results of the 136 consecutive minimally invasive total knee arthroplasties. J Med Assoc Thai 2005, 88(Suppl 4):s74-s78.
11. Haaker R.G., Stockheim M., Kamp M., Proff G., Breitenfelder J., Ottersbach A. Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 433:152-159.
12. Foley N.C., Bhogal S.K., Teasell R.W., Bureau Y., Speechley M.R. Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Phys Ther 2006, 86:817-824.
13. Mantel N., Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959, 22:719-748.
14. Higgins J.P.T., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327:557-560.
15. Chotanaphuti T., Ongnamthip P., Karnchanalerk K., Udombuthong P. Comparative study between 2cm limited quadriceps exposure minimally invasive surgery and conventional total knee arthroplasty in quadriceps function: prospective randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 2008, 9:203-207.
16. Varela-Egocheaga J.R., Suárez-Suárez M.A., Fernández-Villán M., González-Sastre V., Varela-Gómez J.R., Rodríguez-Merchán C. Minimally invasive subvastus approach: improving the results of total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:1200-1208.
17. Lin W.P., Lin J., Horng L.C., Chang S.M., Jiang C.C. Quadriceps-sparing, minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty. A comparative study. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:1024-1032.
18. Tashiro Y., Miura H., Matsuda S., Okazaki K., Iwamoto Y. Minimally invasive versus standard approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 463:144-150.
19. Hart R., Janeček M., Čižmář I., Štipčák V., Kučera B., Filan P. Minimal-invasive und navigierte Implantation von Knietotalendoprothesen. Radiologische analyse und frühe klinische Ergebnisse. Orthopade 2006, 35:552-557.
20. Lüring C., Beckmann J., Haiböck P., Perlick L., Grifka J., Tingart M. Minimal invasive and computer assisted total knee replacement compared with the conventional technique: a prospective, randomised trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008, 16:928-934.
21. Seon J.K., Song E.K. Navigation-assisted less invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty. A randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty 2006, 21:777-782.
22. Friedman L.F., Furberg C.D., DeMets D.L. Fundamentals of clinical trials 1998, Springer, New York. 3rd edition.
23. Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
24. Fisher D.A., Watts M., Davis K.E. Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18(7 Suppl 1):2-8.
25. Bauwens K., Matthes G., Wich M., Gebhard F., Hanson B., Ekkernkamp A., et al. Navigated total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:261-269.
26. Barrack R.L., Barnes C.L., Burnett R.S.J., Miller D., Clohisy J.C., Maloney W.J. Minimal incision surgery as a risk factor for early failure of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:489-498.
27. Aglietti P., Baldini A., Sensi L. Quadriceps-sparing versus mini-subvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 452:106-111.
28. Chin P.L., Foo L.S.S., Yang K.Y., Yeo S.J., Lo N.N. Randomized controlled trial comparing the radiologic outcomes of conventional and minimally invasive techniques for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:800-806.
29. Mukherjee P., Press J., Hockings M. Mid-vastus vs medial para-patellar approach in total knee replacement - time to discharge. Iowa Orthop J 2009, 29:19-22.
30. Niki Y., Mochizuki T., Momohara S., Saito S., Toyama Y., Matsumoto H. Is minimally invasive surgery in total knee arthroplasty really minimally invasive surgery?. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:499-504.
31. Dorr L.D., Thomas D., Long W.T., Polatin P.B., Sirianni L.E. Psychologic reasons for patients preferring minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 458:94-100.
32. McAllister C.M., Stepanian J.D. The impact of minimally invasive surgical techniques on early range of motion after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:10-18.
33. Kim Y.H., Sohn K.S., Kim J.S. Short-term results of primary total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision of a standard incision. J Arthroplasty 2006, 21:712-718.
34. Han I., Seong S.C., Lee S., Yoo J.H., Lee M.C. Simultaneous bilateral MIS-TKA results in faster functional recovery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466:1449-1459.
35. Juosponis R., Tarasevicius S., Smailys A., Kalesinskas R.J. Functional and radiological outcome after total knee replacement performed with mini-midvastus or conventional arthrotomy: controlled randomised trial. Int Orthop 2009, 33:1233-1237.
36. Karachalios Th., Giotikas D., Roidis N., Poultsides L., Bargiotas K., Malizos K.N. Total knee replacement performed with either a mini-midvastus or a standard approach. A prospective randomised clinical and radiological trial. J Bone Joint Surg 2008, 90:584-591.
37. Karpman R.R., Smith H.L. Comparison of the early results of minimally invasive vs standard approaches to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:681-688.
38. Kim Y.H., Kim J.S., Kim D.Y. Clinical outcome and rate of complications after primary total knee replacement performed with quadriceps-sparing or standard arthrotomy. J Bone Joint Surg 2007, 89:467-470.
39. Kolisek F.R., Bonutti P.M., Hozack W.J., Purtill J., Sharkey P.F., Zelicof S.B., et al. 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 2007, 22:8-13.
40. Pan W.M., Li X.G., Tang T.S., Qian Z.L., Zhang Q., Zhang C.M. Mini-subvastus versus a standard approach in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Int Med Res (England) 2010, 38:890-900.
41. Wulker N., Lambermont J.P., Sacchetti L., Lazaro J.G. A prospective randomized study of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 2010, 92-A:1584-1590.