Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6

Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with 24-month follow-up

Sayfa
586–592
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The decision between the 2 surgical approaches should be based on surgeon experience and preference.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Comparisons of mini-midvastus (mMV) with mini-medial parapatellar (mMPP) approach in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been performed in the past but were often compromised by variables such as disease, pain tolerance, bone quality, and surgeon.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The aim of this study was to minimize the influence of these factors in order to more accurately evaluate these 2 approaches.Methods: Forty-five patients who had bilateral arthritis of the knee with similar deformity and preoperative range of motion (ROM) on both sides agreed to have 1 knee replaced via mMV approach (Group I) and the other via mMPP approach (Group II) were evaluated.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The decision between the 2 surgical approaches should be based on surgeon experience and preference.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: Comparisons of mini-midvastus (mMV) with mini-medial parapatellar (mMPP) approach in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been performed in the past but were often compromised by variables such as disease, pain tolerance, bone quality, and surgeon. The aim of this study was to minimize the influence of these factors in order to more accurately evaluate these 2 approaches.Methods: Forty-five patients who had bilateral arthritis of the knee with similar deformity and preoperative range of motion (ROM) on both sides agreed to have 1 knee replaced via mMV approach (Group I) and the other via mMPP approach (Group II) were evaluated. Postoperative clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, perioperative parameters, and knee component positioning were analyzed.Results: No significant differences were found between the mMV and mMPP groups with regards to functional assessment, patient satisfaction, postoperative complication, quadricep strength, pain at the point of incision, degree of soft tissue release, as well as ROM. Nor were significant differences found between the 2 groups in terms of perioperative parameters and radiographic component positioning.Conclusion: The present study did not detect any substantive difference between the mMV and mMPP approaches for TKA. The decision between the 2 surgical approaches should be based on surgeon experience and preference.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LIU, H., MEI, X., ZHANG, Z., SUN, J. (2015). Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with 24-month follow-up. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6, 586–592. https://ajindex.com/articles/214876

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Zhang Z, Zhu W, Zhu L, Du Y. Superior alignment but no difference in clinical outcome after minimally invasive computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MICA-UKA). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014. [Epub ahead of print] Yoo JH, Park BK, Han CD, Oh HC, Park SH. Minimum 5-year Follow-up Results of Minimally Invasive Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Mini-Keel Modular Tibial Im- plant. Knee Surg Relat Res 2014;26:149-54.
  2. Khakha RS, Chowdhry M, Norris M, Kheiran A, Patel N, Chauhan SK. Five-year follow-up of minimally invasive computer assisted total knee arthroplasty (MICATKA) versus conventional computer assisted total knee arthro- plasty (CATKA) - A population matched study. Knee 2014;21:944-8.
  3. Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR. Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty: the early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;440:67-76.
  4. Juosponis R, Tarasevicius S, Smailys A, Kalesinskas RJ. Functional and radiological outcome after total knee re- placement performed with mini-midvastus or conven- tional arthrotomy: controlled randomised trial. Int Orthop 2009;33:1233-7.
  5. Zhang Z, Zhu W, Gu B, Zhu L, Chen C. Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach in total knee ar- throplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013;133:389-95.
  6. Li XG, Tang TS, Qian ZL, Huang LX, Pan WM, Zhu RF. Comparison of the mini-midvastus with the mini-me- dial parapatellar approach in primary TKA. Orthopedics 2010;33:723. Huang Z, Shen B, Ma J, Yang J, Zhou Z, Kang P, et al. Mini-midvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in TKA: muscle damage and inflammation markers. Ortho- pedics 2012;35:1038-45. Lonner JH. Minimally invasive approaches to total knee arthroplasty: results. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2006;35(7 Suppl):27-9.
  7. Heekin RD, Fokin AA. Mini-midvastus versus mini-medi- al parapatellar approach for minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: outcomes pendulum is at equilibrium. J Ar- throplasty 2014;29:339-42.
  8. Liu Z, Yang H. Comparison of the minimally invasive and standard medial parapatellar approaches for total knee ar- throplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Med Res 2011;39:1607-17.
  9. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Sensi L. Quadriceps-sparing versus mini-subvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;452:106-11.
  10. Kim YH, Sohn KS, Kim JS. Short-term results of primary total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision or a standard incision. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:712-8. Pietsch