Comparison of the quadriceps-sparing and subvastus approaches versus the standard parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Jiaxing Wang¹  Mengqi Cheng¹  Tao Cheng¹  Xianlong Zhang¹  Xiaochun Peng¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, The Sixth Affiliated People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, China

关键词: Randomized controlled trial;    Meta-analysis;    Subvastus;    Quadriceps-sparing;    Standard parapatellar;    Total knee arthroplasty;   

Others  :  1232691
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0783-z

 received in 2015-02-10, accepted in 2015-10-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The quadriceps-sparing and subvastus approaches are two of the most commonly used minimally-invasive approaches in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the conclusion among studies still remains controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the subvastus and quadriceps-sparing approaches with the standard parapatellar approach in TKA.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the quadriceps-sparing or subvastus approach with the standard parapatellar approach was identified in the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science up to July 2014. Two authors extracted the following data: the basic characteristics of patients, the methodological quality and clinical outcomes from the included RCTs independently. RevMan 5.2.7 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 19 RCTs (1578 patients) were included for meta-analysis. The results suggested that the quadriceps-sparing approach showed better outcomes in knee society score (KSS) and visual analog score (VAS), but this approach required a longer operative time than the standard parapatellar approach. There were no differences in total complications, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, blood loss and hospital stay between the quadriceps-sparing and standard approaches. The subvastus approach showed better outcomes in VAS, knee range of motion (ROM), straight leg raise and lateral retinacular release than the standard parapatellar approach. There were no differences in KSS, total complication, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, blood loss and hospital stay between the quadriceps-sparing and standard approaches.

Conclusions

The current evidence showed that, when compared with the standard parapatellar approach, the quadriceps-sparing approach was associated with better outcomes in KSS and VAS but required a longer operative time, and the subvastus approach was associated with better outcomes in VAS, ROM, straight leg raise and lateral retinacular release.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Peng et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Teng Y, Du W, Jiang J, Gao X, Pan S, Wang J et al.. Subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: meta-analysis. Orthopedics. 2012; 12:e1722-1731.
• [2]Heekin RD, Fokin AA. Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach for minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: outcomes pendulum is at equilibrium. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 2:339-342.
• [3]Li XG, Tang TS, Qian ZL, Huang LX, Pan WM, Zhu RF. Comparison of the mini-midvastus with the mini-medial parapatellar approach in primary TKA. Orthopedics. 2010; 10:723.
• [4]Zhang Z, Zhu W, Gu B, Zhu L, Chen C. Mini-midvastus versus mini-medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 3:389-395.
• [5]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; 4:499-504.
• [6]Hofmann AA, Plaster RL, Murdock LE. Subvastus (Southern) approach for primary total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991; 269:70-77.
• [7]Tria AJ, Coon TM. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 416:185-190.
• [8]Scuderi GR, Tenholder M, Capeci C. Surgical approaches in mini-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 428:61-67.
• [9]Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR. Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty: the early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 440:67-76.
• [10]Aglietti P, Baldini A, Sensi L. Quadriceps-sparing versus mini-subvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 452:106-111.
• [11]Lin TC, Wang HK, Chen JW, Chiu CM, Chou HL, Chang CH. Minimally invasive knee arthroplasty with the subvastus approach allows rapid rehabilitation: a prospective, biomechanical and observational study. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013; 5:557-562.
• [12]Jain S, Wasnik S, Mittal A, Hegde C. Outcome of subvastus approach in elderly nonobese patients undergoing bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled study. Indian J Orthop. 2013; 1:45-49.
• [13]Jackson G, Waldman BJ, Schaftel EA. Complications following quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008; 6:547.
• [14]Kim YH, Kim JS, Kim DY. Clinical outcome and rate of complications after primary total knee replacement performed with quadriceps-sparing or standard arthrotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 4:467-470.
• [15]Chen AF, Alan RK, Redziniak DE, Tria AJ. Quadriceps sparing total knee replacement. The initial experience with results at two to four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 11:1448-1453.
• [16]Varela-Egocheaga JR, Suarez-Suarez MA, Fernandez-Villan M, Gonzalez-Sastre V, Varela-Gomez JR, Rodriguez-Merchan C. Minimally invasive subvastus approach: improving the results of total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 5:1200-1208.
• [17]Shen H, Zhang XL, Wang Q, Shao JJ, Jiang Y. [Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty through a quadriceps sparing approach: a comparative study]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2007; 16:1083-1086.
• [18]Roysam GS, Oakley MJ. Subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, and observer-blinded trial. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 4:454-457.
• [19]Lin WP, Lin J, Horng LC, Chang SM, Jiang CC. Quadriceps-sparing, minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 7:1024-1032.
• [20]Bridgman SA, Walley G, MacKenzie G, Clement D, Griffiths D, Maffulli N. Sub-vastus approach is more effective than a medial parapatellar approach in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee. 2009; 3:216-222.
• [21]Sastre S, Sanchez MD, Lozano L, Orient F, Fontg F, Nunez M. Total knee arthroplasty: better short-term results after subvastus approach: a randomized, controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 10:1184-1188.
• [22]Chiang H, Lee CC, Lin WP, Jiang CC. Comparison of quadriceps-sparing minimally invasive and medial parapatellar total knee arthroplasty: a 2-year follow-up study. J Formos Med Assoc. 2012; 12:698-704.
• [23]Weinhardt C, Barisic M, Bergmann EG, Heller KD. Early results of subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in primary total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 6:401-403.
• [24]Pan WM, Li XG, Tang TS, Qian ZL, Zhang Q, Zhang CM. Mini-subvastus versus a standard approach in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Int Med Res. 2010; 3:890-900.
• [25]Van Hemert WL, Senden R, Grimm B, van der Linde MJ, Lataster A, Heyligers IC. Early functional outcome after subvastus or parapatellar approach in knee arthroplasty is comparable. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010; 6:943-951.
• [26]Wegrzyn J, Parratte S, Coleman-Wood K, Kaufman KR, Pagnano MW. The John Insall award: no benefit of minimally invasive TKA on gait and strength outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 1:46-55.
• [27]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 10:1006-1012.
• [28]Higgins. JPT, Green. S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: www.cochrane-handbookorg. Accessed 2 June 2014
• [29]Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 11:1539-1558.
• [30]Varnell MS, Bhowmik-Stoker M, McCamley J, Jacofsky MC, Campbell M, Jacofsky D. Difference in stair negotiation ability based on TKA surgical approach. J Knee Surg. 2011; 2:117-123.
• [31]Xu J, Liu C, Zhou S, Lin Y. Total knee arthroplasty:Comparison between quadriceps sparing approach and medial parapatellar approach. J Clin Rehabilit Tissue Engineering Res. 2013; 35:6240-6246.
• [32]Tasker A, Hassaballa M, Murray J, Lancaster S, Artz N, Harries W et al.. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty; a pragmatic randomised controlled trial reporting outcomes up to 2 year follow up. Knee. 2014; 1:189-193.
• [33]Lin SY, Chen CH, Fu YC, Huang PJ, Lu CC, Su JY 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; 7:906-910.
• [34]Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Kubo S, Mizuno K, Kinoshita K, Ishida K et al.. Soft tissue balance measurement in minimal incision surgery compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 6:880-886.
• [35]Karpman RR, Smith HL. Comparison of the early results of minimally invasive vs standard approaches to total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 5:681-688.
• [36]Shen H, Zhang XL, Wang Q, Shao JJ, Jiang Y. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty through a quadriceps sparing approach: a comparative study. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2007; 16:1083-1086.
• [37]Pagnano MW, Meneghini RM, Trousdale RT. Anatomy of the extensor mechanism in reference to quadriceps-sparing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 452:102-105.
• [38]Hofmann AA, Plaster RL, Murdock LE. Subvastus (Southern) approach for primary total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991; 269:70-77.
• [39]Schroer WC, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME, LeMarr AR. Mini-subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 1:19-25.
• [40]Hu X, Wang G, Pei F, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou Z et al.. A meta-analysis of the sub-vastus approach and medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 21(10):2398-404.
• [41]Bourke MG, Jull GA, Buttrum PJ, Fitzpatrick PL, Dalton PA, Russell TG. Comparing outcomes of medial parapatellar and subvastus approaches in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012;3:347–53. e341.