Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 5, pp 1200–1208 | Cite as

Minimally Invasive Subvastus Approach: Improving the Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

  • José Ramón Varela-EgocheagaEmail author
  • Miguel Angel Suárez-Suárez
  • María Fernández-Villán
  • Vanessa González-Sastre
  • José Ramón Varela-Gómez
  • Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán
Symposium: Current Issues in Knee Reconstruction

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive knee arthroplasty seeks to diminish the problems of traditional extensile exposures aiming for more rapid rehabilitation of patients after surgery.

Questions/purposes

To determine if the subvastus approach results in less perioperative pain and blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and improved function at both early and long-term followup.

Methods

One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized trial. Fifty were operated on using a minimally invasive subvastus approach and the other 50 by a conventional, peripatellar approach. Minimum followup was 3 years. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the Knee Society score and range of motion during followup.

Results

The minimally invasive approach resulted in greater perioperative bleeding but no increase in transfusions. No differences were found in postoperative pain between groups nor did hospital stay show any differences. The range of motion on the third day after surgery was greater in the minimally invasive group. No differences were found in surgical time, femoral or tibial component orientation or outliers, or complication rates. Both Knee Society score and range of motion were superior using the minimally invasive subvastus approach during followup out to 36 months.

Conclusions

The minimally invasive subvastus approach can result in improved long-term Knee Society scores and range of motion of total knee arthroplasty without increased risk of component malalignment, surgical time, or complication rate.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Tibial Component Knee Society Score Standard Group Component Orientation Medial Parapatellar Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Alan RK, Tria AJ Jr. Quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty using the posterior stabilized TKA design. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:71–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger RA, Deirmengian CA, Della Valle GJ, Paprosky WG, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG. A Technique for minimally invasive, quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Sanders S, Gerlinger T, Della Valle C, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG. Outpatient total knee arthroplasty with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(Suppl 3):33–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boerger TO, Aglietti P, Mondanelli N, Sensi L. Mini-subvastus versus parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:82–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buvanendran A, Tuman KJ, McCoy DD, Matusic B, Chelly JE. Anesthetic techniques for minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:133–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callaghan JJ, Warth LC, Liu SS, Hozack WJ, Klein GR. Internet promotion on MIS and CAOS in TKA by Knee Society members. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:97–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook JL, Cushner FD, Scuderi GR. Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:46–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalury DF, Dennis DA. Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:77–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hart R, Janecek M, Cizmar I, Stipcak V, Kucera B, Filan P. Navigated minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Orthopade. 2006;35:552–557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healy WL, Iorio R, Ko J, Appleby S, Lemos SW. Impact of cost reduction programs on short-term patient outcome and hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:348–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howell JR, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Minimally invasive hip replacement: rationale, applied anatomy, and instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:107–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ, Purtill J, Sharkey PF, Zelicof SB, Ragland PS, Kester M, Mont MA, Rothman RH. Clinical experience using a minimally invasive surgical approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:8–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laskin RS. Reduced-incision total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus technique. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:52–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongjiunakorm A, Pittors K, Davis J, Shim JC, Pavlov H, Petersen M. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:74–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lombardini AV, Viacava AJ, Berend KR. Rapid recovery protocols and minimally invasive surgery help achieve high knee flexion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006:452:117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malik A, Dorr LD. The science of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:74–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pagnano MW, Meneghini M, Trousdale RT. Anatomy of the extensor mechanism in reference to quadriceps-sparing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:102–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodríguez HA. Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;449:320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenberg AG. Anesthesia and analgesia protocols for total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2006;35(Suppl):23–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schroer WC, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME, LeMarr AR. Mini-subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:19–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scuderi GR, Tenholder M, Capeci C. Surgical approaches in mini-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:61–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sporer SM. The minimally invasive subvastus approach for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19:58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tria AJ Jr, Coon TM. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:185–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watanabe N, Narita W, Namura T, Ito H, Nishimura T, Kubo T. Anatomical assessment of the vastus medialis oblique muscle in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:287–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zanasi S. Minimally invasive computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty through a subvastus approach. Orthopedics. 2006;29(Suppl):S142–S144.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Ramón Varela-Egocheaga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miguel Angel Suárez-Suárez
    • 2
    • 3
  • María Fernández-Villán
    • 2
  • Vanessa González-Sastre
    • 2
  • José Ramón Varela-Gómez
    • 4
  • Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán
    • 5
  1. 1.Servicio de Cirugía Ortopédica y TraumatologíaHospital de Navarra, C/Irunlarrea 3NavarraSpain
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital de CabueñesGijónSpain
  3. 3.Universidad de OviedoOviedoSpain
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital Álvarez-BuyllaMieresSpain
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital La PazMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations