Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, 40:726 | Cite as

Aktueller Stellenwert der minimalinvasiven Knieendoprothetik

Eine Metaanalyse
  • T. KappeEmail author
  • M. Flören
  • R. Bieger
  • H. Reichel
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Die Implantation von Knietotalendoprothesen erfolgt zunehmend über minimalinvasive Zugänge. Anhand eines aktuellen Literaturüberblicks werden die Vor- und Nachteile minimalinvasiver Zugänge zur Implantation von Knietotalendoprothesen analysiert. Den potenziellen Vorteilen geringerer postoperativer Schmerzen, einer besseren Beweglichkeit und Mobilität in der frühen postoperativen Phase stehen die Risiken der Fehlpositionierung der Komponenten und der beeinträchtigten Wundheilung gegenüber. Langfristige Verbesserungen der Kniefunktion und der Lebensqualität sollten nicht durch Techniken gefährdet werden, die nur vorübergehende oder sekundäre Vorteile erbringen.

Schlüsselwörter

Knieendoprothetik Minimalinvasiv Fehlpositionierung Beeinträchtigte Wundheilung Vorübergehende Vorteile 

Current role of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty

A meta-analysis

Abstract

Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly being used in total knee arthroplasty. By means of a review of the literature the pros and cons of minimally invasive approaches for total knee arthroplasty were analyzed. The potential advantages of reduced postoperative pain and improved early range of motion and mobility are opposed by the risks of malpositioning of the prosthetic components and impaired wound healing. Long-term improvement of knee function and quality of life should not be compromised by techniques promising temporary or secondary advantages.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Minimally invasive Malpositioning Impaired wound healing Temporary advantages 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Aglietti P, Baldini A, Sensi L (2006) Quadriceps-sparing versus mini-subvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:106–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayers D, Dennid D, Joohanson N et al (1997) Common complications of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 79-A:278–311Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldini A, Adravanti P (2008) Less invasive TKA: extramedullary femoral reference without navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2694–2700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bathis H, Tingart M, Perlick L et al (2005) Stellenwert von Endoprothetik und Umstellungsosteotomie bei Gonarthrose – Ergebnisse einer Umfrage an Unfallchirurgischen und Orthopadischen Kliniken. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143:19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boerger TO, Aglietti P, Mondanelli N et al (2005) Mini-subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:82–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolanos AA, Colizza WA, McCann PD et al (1998) A comparison of isokinetic strength testing and gait analysis in patients with posterior cruciate-retaining and substituting knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 13:906–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M et al (2004) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 86(Suppl 2):26–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonutti PM, Zywiel MG, Seyler TM et al (2009) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty using the contralateral knee as a control group: a case-control study. Int Orthop [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ et al (2002) Twenty-year evaluation of the New Jersey LCS Rotating Platform Knee Replacement. J Knee Surg 15:84–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chin PL, Foo LS, Yang KY et al (2007) Randomized controlled trial comparing the radiologic outcomes of conventional and minimally invasive techniques for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:800–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chotanaphuti T, Ongnamthip P, Karnchanalerk K et al (2008) Comparative study between 2 cm limited quadriceps exposure minimal invasive surgery and conventional total knee arthroplasty in quadriceps function: prospective randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 91:203–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook JL, Scuderi GR, Tenholder M (2006) Incidence of lateral release in total knee arthroplasty in standard and mini-incision approaches. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:123–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2005) Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon MC, Brown RR, Parsch D et al (2005) Modular fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament. A study of patients followed for a minimum of fifteen years. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 87:598–603Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flören M, Davis J, Peterson MG et al (2007) A mini-midvastus capsular approach with patellar displacement decreases the prevalence of patella baja. J Arthroplasty 22:51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:68–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han I, Seong SC, Lee S et al (2008) Simultaneous bilateral MIS-TKA results in faster functional recovery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1449–1453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holt G, Wheelan K, Gregori A (2006) The ethical implications of recent innovations in knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 88:226–229Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang HT, Su JY, Chang JK et al (2007) The early clinical outcome of minimally invasive quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty: report of a 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 22:1007–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Insall J, Ranawat CS, Scott WN et al (1976) Total condylar knee replacment: preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 120:149–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ito J, Koshino T, Okamoto R et al (2003) 15-year follow-up study of total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Arthroplasty 18:984–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson G, Waldman BJ, Schaftel EA (2008) Complications following quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 31:547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jamsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T et al (2009) Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 91:38–47Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juosponis R, Tarasevicius S, Smailys A et al (2009) Functional and radiological outcome after total knee replacement performed with mini-midvastus or conventional arthrotomy: controlled randomised trial. Int Orthop 33:1233–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karachalios T, Giotikas D, Roidis N et al (2008) Total knee replacement performed with either a mini-midvastus or a standard approach: a prospective randomised clinical and radiological trial. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 90:584–591Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karpman RR, Smith HL (2009) Comparison of the early results of minimally invasive vs standard approaches to total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24:681–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kashyap SN, van Ommeren JW (2008) Clinical experience with less invasive surgery techniques in total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:544–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM et al (2002) Long-term followup of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:34–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim TK, Choi J, Shin KS et al (2008) Patients‘ perspective on controversial issues in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    King J, Stamper DL, Schaad DC et al (2007) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty. Assessment of the learning curve and the postoperative recuperative period. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89:1497–1503Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ et al (2007) Clinical experience using a minimally invasive surgical approach for total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective randomized study compared to a standard approach. J Arthroplasty 22:8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89:780–785Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laskin RS (1995) Flexion space configuration in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:657–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Laskin RS (2005) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:54–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laskin RS (2006) Reduced-incision total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus technique. J Knee Surg 19:52–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laskin RS (2007) Surgical exposure for total knee arthroplasty: for everything there is a season. J Arthroplasty 22:12–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongjunakorn A et al (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:74–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manley M, Ong K, Lau E et al (2009) Total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the United States medicare population: effect of hospital and surgeon procedure volume. J Arthroplasty 24:1061–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAllister CM, Stepanian JD (2008) The impact of minimally invasive surgical techniques on early range of motion after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:10–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, Jasty M et al (2004) Knee-simulator testing of conventional and cross-linked polyethylene tibial inserts. J Arthroplasty 19:887–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niki Y, Mochizuki T, Momohara S et al (2009) Is minimally invasive surgery in total knee arthroplasty really minimally invasive surgery? J Arthroplasty 24:499–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pagnano MW, Meneghini RM (2006) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty with an optimized subvastus approach. J Arthroplasty 21:22–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pakos EE, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA (2005) Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 87:1438–1445Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rodriguez JA, Baez N, Rasquinha V et al (2001) Metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:174–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS (2001) Total condylar knee replacement: a 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schroer WC, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME et al (2008) Mini-subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schroer WC, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME et al (2008) Surgical accuracy with the mini-subvastus total knee arthroplasty a computer tomography scan analysis of postoperative implant alignment. J Arthroplasty 23:543–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scuderi GR, Tenholder M, Capeci C (2004) Surgical approaches in mini-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shen H, Zhang XL, Wang Q et al (2007) [Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty through a quadriceps sparing approach: a comparative study]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 45:1083–1086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Song L, Yu J, Zhang T (2009) [Comparative study on early complication after total knee arthroplasty surgery by different incisions]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 23:274–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tanavalee A, Thiengwittayaporn S, Ngarmukos S (2004) Rapid ambulation and range of motion after minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Med Assoc Thai 87(Suppl 2):S195–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tashiro Y, Miura H, Matsuda S et al (2007) Minimally invasive versus standard approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:144–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR (2005) Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty: the early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tria AJ Jr (2003) Advancements in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 26:s859–s863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tria AJ Jr, Coon TM (2003) Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Trousdale RT, McGrory BJ, Berry DJ et al (1999) Patients‘ concerns prior to undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Mayo Clin Proc 74:978–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vail TP (2004) Minimally invasive knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:51–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Varela-Egocheaga JR, Suarez-Suarez MA, Fernandez-Villan M et al (2010) Minimally invasive subvastus approach: improving the results of total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1200–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Watanabe T, Muneta T, Ishizuki M (2009) Is a minimally invasive approach superior to a conventional approach for total knee arthroplasty? Early outcome and 2- to 4-year follow-up. J Orthop Sci 14:589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Whiteside LA, Saeki K, Mihalko WM (2000) Functional medical ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wohlrab D, Gutteck N, Hildebrand M et al (2008) Der Einfluss des Zugangsweges auf die frühe postoperative Rehabilitationsphase nach Knieprothesenimplantation. Z Orthop Unfall 146:200–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Ulm am RKUUlmDeutschland

Personalised recommendations