Skip to main content
Log in

Minimally invasive navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

It is unclear whether the minimally invasive navigation-assisted (MINA) or conventional (CONv) approach for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to better clinical and radiographic outcomes. This meta-analysis compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the MINA and CONv approaches after primary TKA. It was hypothesized that there was no difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two surgical approaches for primary TKA.

Methods

This meta-analysis reviewed all studies that compared surgical time, incision length, flexion range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (

KSS), coronal mechanical axis (CMA), and coronal femoral component angle (CFCA) with various measurement tools, from direct interview to plain radiography, between the MINA and CONv approaches.

Results

Five studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The findings of this study suggest that surgical time (95 % CI −18.51 to 39.09; n.s.), KSS (95 % CI −8.55 to 30.84; n.s.), CMA (95 % CI −1.01 to 0.54; n.s.), and CFCA (95 % CI −0.91 to 2.97; n.s.) were similar between the two surgical approaches, whereas incision length (95 % CI −5.18 to −3.69; P < 0.001) was significantly shorter in the MINA approach and flexion ROM (95 % CI 14.26–19.01; P < 0.001) was significantly greater in the MINA approach.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes, including surgical time, KSS, CMA, and CFCA, in patients who underwent MINA and CONv approach for primary TKA, but the MINA approach resulted in a slightly shorter incision length and increased flexion ROM than the CONv approach. Therefore, if particular attention has to be paid to patient’s selection with appropriate counselling and surgeon’s experience, MINA approach can provide early clinical benefit when compared with CONv approach. Besides, orthopaedic surgeons need to master the MINA and CONv approaches because both approaches have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study, Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alan RK, Tria AJ Jr (2006) Quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty using the posterior stabilized TKA design. J Knee Surg 19:71–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alcelik I, Sukeik M, Pollock R et al (2012) Comparison of the minimally invasive and standard medial parapatellar approaches for primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2502–2512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buechel FF Sr (2002) Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen AF, Alan RK, Redziniak DE et al (2006) Quadriceps sparing total knee replacement: the initial experience with results at two to four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1448–1453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2007) Randomized controlled trial comparing the radiologic outcomes of conventional and minimally invasive techniques for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:800–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C, Ragone V (2007) Mini-incision versus mini-incision and computer-assisted surgery in total knee replacement: a radiological prospective randomised study. Knee 14:443–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2005) Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dutton AQ, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Lo NN, Chia KU, Chong HC (2008) Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gandhi R, Smith H, Lefaivre KA, Davey JR, Mahomed NN (2011) Complications after minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty as compared with traditional incision techniques: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 26:29–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haas SB, Manitta MA, Burdick P (2006) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the mini midvastus approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:112–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart R, Janecek M, Cizmar I, Stipcak V, Kucera B, Filan P (2006) Minimally invasive and navigated implantation for total knee arthroplasty: X-ray analysis and early clinical results. Orthopade 35:552–557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harvey IA, Barry K, Johnson R, Elloy MA (1993) Factors that affect the range of movements of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 75B:950–955

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hernández-Vaquero D, Suárez-Vázquez A (2007) Complications of fixed infrared emitters in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  15. Huang HT, Su JY, Chang JK, Chen CH, Wang GJ (2007) The early clinical outcome of minimally invasive quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty: report of a 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 22:1007–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM et al (2002) Long-term followup of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim YH, Kim JS, Kim DY (2007) Clinical outcome and rate of complications after primary total knee replacement performed with quadriceps-sparing or standard arthrotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:467–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi Y, Kwon OR (2009) Computer-assisted surgical navigation does not improve the alignment and orientation of the components in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:14–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ, Purtill J, Sharkey PF, Zelicof SB, Ragland PS, Kester M, Mont MA, Rothman RH (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 22:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee DH, Choi J, Hha KW, Kim HJ, Han SB (2011) No difference in early functional outcomes for mini-midvastus and limited medial parapatellar approaches in navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:66–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li C, Zeng Y, Shen B, Kang P, Yang J, Zhou Z, Pei F (2015) A meta-analysis of minimally invasive and conventional medial parapatella approaches for primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1971–1985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lüring C, Beckmann J, Haibock P, Perlick L, Grifka J, Tingart M (2008) Minimal invasive and computer assisted total knee replacement compared with the conventional technique: a prospective, randomised trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:928–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Macule-Beneyto F, Hernández-Vaquero D, Segur-Vilata JM, Colomina-Rodriguez R, Hinarejos-Gomez P, Carcia-Forcada I, Seral-Garcia B (2006) Navigation in total knee arthroplasty. A multicenter study. Int Orthop 30:536–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nestor BJ, Toulson CE, Backus SI (2010) Mini-midvastus vs standard medial parapatellar approach: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study in patients undergoing bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(5–11):e1

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oremus M, Wolfson C, Perrault A, Demers L, Momoli F, Moride Y (2001) Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 12:232–236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pagnano MW, Meneghini RM, Trousdale RT (2006) Anatomy of the Extensor Mechanism in Reference to Quadriceps-sparing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:102–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Seon JK, Song EK (2005) Functional impact of navigation-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 28:1251

    Google Scholar 

  28. Seon JK, Song EK (2006) Navigation-assisted less invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty 21:777–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Silva M, Shepherd EF, Jackson WO, Pratt JA, McClung CD, Schmalzried TP (2003) Knee strength after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:605–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F, Utzschneider S, Pietschmann MF, Jansson V, Müller PE (2013) Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2453–2461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang Z, Gu B, Zhu W, Zhu L, Li Q, Du Y (2014) Minimally invasive and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus conventional technique: a prospective, randomized study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:1475–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jung-Ro Yoon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shin, YS., Kim, HJ., Ko, YR. et al. Minimally invasive navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 3425–3432 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4016-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4016-2

Keywords

Navigation