Medial subvastus versus the medial parapatellar approach for total knee replacement

EFORT Open Reviews - Tập 3 Số 3 - Trang 78-84 - 2018
James R. Berstock1, James R. D. Murray2, Michael R. Whitehouse1, Ashley Blom1, Andrew D Beswick1
1Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol, UK
2Avon Orthopaedic Centre, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK

Tóm tắt

Twenty randomized controlled trials comprising 1893 primary total knee replacements were included in this review. The subvastus approach conferred superior results for mean difference (MD) in time to regain an active straight leg raise (1.7 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 2.3), visual analogue score for pain on day one (0.8 points on a scale out of 10, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.4) and total range of knee movement at one week (7°, 95% CI 3.2 to 10.7). The subvastus approach also resulted in fewer lateral releases (odds ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.7) and less peri-operative blood loss (MD 57 mL, 95% CI 10.5 to 106.4) but prolonged surgical times (MD 9.7 min, 95% CI 3.9 to 15.6). There was no difference in Knee Society Score at six weeks or one year, or the rate of adverse events including superficial or deep infection, deep vein thrombosis or knee stiffness requiring manipulation under anaesthesia. This review demonstrates evidence of early post-operative benefits following the subvastus approach with equivalence between approaches thereafter. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:78-84. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170030.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

No authors listed. 11th Annual report 2014. Hemel Hempstead: National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2014.

Erkes F, 1929, Bruns’ Beitr Klin Chir, 147, 221

Hofmann AA, 1991, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 269, 70

10.1097/00003086-200205000-00027

Kayler DE, 1988, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 221

10.1097/00003086-200002000-00020

10.1589/jpts.25.557

10.1016/j.knee.2017.01.010

10.1186/s12891-015-0783-z

10.1007/s00167-012-1944-3

10.1177/147323001103900503

10.1007/s00167-014-2837-4

10.3928/01477447-20121120-16

10.1016/j.arth.2009.06.008

Higgins J , Green SP , eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.

10.1136/bmj.b2700

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.006

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.003

10.1002/sim.1186

10.2106/JBJS.L.01578

10.1007/s11999-012-2486-1

10.4103/0019-5413.106900

10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.005

10.1007/s00167-010-1292-0

Dutka J, 2011, Orthopedics, 34, 148, 10.3928/01477447-20110427-05

10.1177/147323001003800315

10.1007/s11999-009-1160-8

10.1007/s00264-007-0510-y

Bridgman S, 2006, Trials, 23, 1

10.1007/s00167-009-0780-6

10.1007/s00132-006-0929-7

10.1097/01.blo.0000185755.09777.2d

10.1007/s00402-004-0692-3

Hafez MA, 2002, Pan Arab J Orth Trauma, 6, 181

10.1054/arth.2001.22388

10.1016/S0883-5403(06)80216-0

Maric Z, 1991, Orthop Trans, 15, 43

10.1016/j.arth.2015.08.004

Zhou C, 2014, Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research, 9, 1337

10.1007/s00402-014-1963-2

10.1177/230949900601400111

10.1007/s00167-016-4208-9

10.1080/000164701753739124

10.1016/j.arth.2006.06.007

10.4103/0019-5413.65157

10.5312/wjo.v6.i10.804

10.4103/0019-5413.173517

10.4103/0019-5413.173517

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

EFORT Open Reviews

Tập 3 Số 3

78-84

Thông tin tác giả