The effect of infrapatellar fat pad resection on outcomes post-total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review
The infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP) is resected in approximately 88 % of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries. The aim of this review is to investigate the impact of the IPFP resection on clinical outcomes post-TKA.
Materials and methods
A systematic search of five major databases for all relevant articles published until May, 2015 was conducted. Studies comparing the effect of IPFP resection and preservation on outcomes post-TKA were included. Each study was then assessed individually for level of evidence and risk of bias. Studies were then grouped into post-operative outcomes and given a level of evidence ranking based on the collective strength of evidence.
The systematic review identified ten studies suitable for inclusion, with a total of 10,163 patients. Within these ten studies, six post-operative outcomes were identified; knee pain, vascularisation of the patella, range of motion (ROM), patella tendon length/patella infera, wound complications and patient satisfaction. Moderate evidence increased knee pain with IPFP resection post-TKA was found. Conflicting evidence was found for patella vascularisation and patellar tendon length post-TKA. Moderate evidence for no difference in ROM was found. One low quality study was found for wound complications and patient satisfaction.
This systematic review is limited by the lack of level one randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There is however moderate level evidence that IPFP resection increases post-operative knee pain. Further level one RCTs are required to produce evidence-based guidelines regarding IPFP resection.
Systematic Review Level of Evidence: 3.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Infra patellar fat pad Outcomes Pain
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
- 4.Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ, National Joint Registry for England, Wales (2007) The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:893–900. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H (2011) The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 09 May 2015
- 9.Julian PT, Altman DG (2008) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Database. http://hiv.cochrane.org/sites/hiv.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Ch08_Bias.pdf. Accessed 09 May 2015
- 10.Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Seo SS, Kim CW, Ha DJ, Chung HJ (2010) Role of infrapatellar fat pad on primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92B:161Google Scholar