APPROACHES TO THE KNEE IN ARTHROPLASTY SURGERY – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the results of various surgical approaches to the knee in primary arthroplasty surgery.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis

Data Sources: Cochrane Bone, Joint, and Muscle Trauma group trials register (2007), Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library issue 2, 2007), Medline (1950 to February 2007), Embase (1974 to February 2007), CINAHL (1982 to February 2007), Pubmed, SCOPUS and ZETOC. If data was insufficient trialists were contacted via telephone, email or letter.

Review methods: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical approaches to the knee in patients undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery.

Results: Twenty-three randomised, controlled trials (1282 patients, 1490 TKAs) were included.

1. Midvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. There was no difference in ROM, hospital stay, knee scores, complications or radiological alignment.

2. Subvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up to the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. There was no difference in operative/tourniquet time, hospital stay, rate of LRR, or complications.

3. Modified “Quadriceps sparing” Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group.

4. Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively.

Conclusions: Approaches preserving the quadriceps tendon improve the early extensor mechanism function and tend to decrease the need for LRR. Combined with a decrease blood loss and postoperative pain, these approaches improve early rehabilitation and allow for a more rapid recovery of knee function. However, these early improvements fail to provide any long term benefit, do not improve knee scores, or decrease the length of hospital stay.