A Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Computer-Assisted vs Minimally Invasive Conventional Instrumentation for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 410-418

  Alcelik, Iihan A ^a   Blomfield, Mark I ^a   Diana, Givanni ^a   Gibbon, Anthony J ^a   Carrington, Nick ^a   Burr, Stephen ^a  

^a YORK HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Alignment; Computer assisted; Meta analysis; Minimally invasive; Navigated; Total knee arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; KNEE FUNCTION; META ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIBIA; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; CONVALESCENCE; DEVICES; KNEE; KNEE REPLACEMENT; LENGTH OF STAY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; LENGTH OF STAY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OPERATIVE TIME; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TIBIA;

EID: 84957843461     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.013     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Gandhi R., Dhotar H., Razak F., et al. Predicting the longer term outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2010, 17(1):15.
2. Haas S.B., Cook S., Beksac B. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 428:68.
3. Laskin R.S. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 440:54.
4. 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(1):10.
5. Alcelik I., Sukeik M., Pollock R., et al. Comparison of the minimally invasive and standard medial parapatellar approaches for primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012, 20(12):2502.
6. Dalury D.F., Dennis D.A. Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 440:77.
7. Dutton A.Q., Yeo S.J., Yang K.Y., et al. Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90(1):2.
8. Higgins J.P.T., Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.2. The Cochrane Library, Issue 4 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK.
9. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
10. Handoll H., Elstub L., Elliot J. Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. About the Cochrane collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGS)) 2008, [4. Art. No: MUSKINJ].
11. Lin S.Y., Chen C.H., Fu Y.C., et al. Comparison of the clinical and radiological outcomes of three minimally invasive techniques for total knee replacement at two years. Bone Joint J 2013, 95-B(7):906.
12. Bonutti P.M., Dethmers D.A., McGrath M.S., et al. Navigation did not improve the precision of minimally invasive knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466(11):2730.
13. Hozo S.P., Djulbegovic B., Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005, 5(1):13.
14. Chang C.W., Wu P.T., Yang C.Y. Blood loss after minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: effects of imageless navigation. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2010, 26(5):237.
15. Chotanaphuti T., Ongnamthip P., Teeraleekul K., et al. Comparative study between computer assisted-navigation and conventional technique in minimally invasive surgery total knee arthroplasty, prospective control study. J Med Assoc Thail 2008, 91(9):1382.
16. Confalonieri N., Manzotti A., Pullen C., et al. Mini-incision versus mini-incision and computer-assisted surgery in total knee replacement: a radiological prospective randomised study. Knee 2007, 14(6):443.
17. Hasegawa M., Yoshida K., Wakabayashi H., et al. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: comparison of jig-based technique versus computer navigation for clinical and alignment outcome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011, 19(6):904.
18. Martin A., Sheinkop M.B., Langhenry M.M., et al. Comparison of two minimally invasive implantation instrument-sets for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010, 18(3):359.
19. Thiengwittayaporn S., Junsee D., Tanavalee A. A comparison of blood loss in minimally invasive surgery with and without electromagnetic computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Med Assoc Thail 2009, 92(Suppl. 6):S27.
20. Thiengwittayaporn S., Kanjanapiboonwong A., Junsee D. Midterm outcomes of electromagnetic computer-assisted navigation in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg 2013, 8:37.
21. Zhang Z., Gu B., Zhu W., et al. Minimal invasive and computer-assisted total knee replacement compared with the minimal invasive technique: a prospective, randomized trial with short-term outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014, 134(1):65.
22. Fu Y., Wang M., Liu Y., et al. Alignment outcomes in navigated total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012, 20(6):1075.
23. Cheng T., Zhao S., Peng X., et al. Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012, 20(7):1307.
24. Xie C., Liu K., Xiao L., et al. Clinical outcomes after computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2012, 35(5):e647.