Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of two minimally invasive implantation instrument-sets for total knee arthroplasty

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

Abstract

Several choices of instrument systems are available for minimally invasive surgical approaches. There are reports that one alternative, the quadriceps sparing, side-cutting instrumentation, results in diminished implantation accuracy. A total of 108 patients were randomized to undergo TKA either using side-cutting implant instrumentation (Group A) or anterior–posterior mini-incision instrumentation (Group B). All TKAs were operated on with a minimal invasive, mini-midvastus surgical approach. 50% of the TKAs were performed with computer-assistance in each cohort. The radiographic parameters, clinical outcomes and knee scores were evaluated preoperatively and 3 months postoperative. In Group B, we found significantly higher accuracy for the mechanical axis of the limb (range ±3°: Group A 54% versus Group B 89%, p = <0.001), medial proximal tibial angle (range ±3°: Group A 85% versus Group B 98%, p = <0.027) and tibial slope (range ±3°: Group A 59% versus Group B 85%, p = <0.007). The application of the navigation system could only significantly reduce outliers (accuracy >3°) in Group B. Clinical outcomes and knee scores were similar in both groups and were not influenced by computer-assistance. Using the anterior–posterior, mini-incision instruments for minimally invasive TKA will lead to higher implantation accuracy when compared to the quadriceps sparing side-cutting instrumentation. The navigation technique could not compensate for shortcomings of the side-cutting instrumentation. The clinical relevance of this study is that the quadriceps sparing side-cutting instrumentation should not be used for TKA because of unacceptable reduced implantation accuracy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Luring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:682–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boerger TO, Aglietti P, Mondanelli N, Sensi L (2005) Mini-subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:82–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonutti P, Dethmers D, Stiehl JB (2008) Case report : femoral shaft fracture resulting from femoral tracker placement in navigated TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1499–1502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M, Ragland PS, Kester M (2004) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):26–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:372–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chin PL, Foo LS, 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 

  7. Coon TM (2007) Quadriceps-sparing minimally invasive technique for total knee arthroplasty : a new classification. Orthopäde 36:1113–1119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Dalury DF, Mulliken BD, Adams MJ, Lewis C, Sauder RR, Bushey JA (2009) Early recovery after total knee arthroplasty performed with and without patellar eversion and tibial translation. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1339–1343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. 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 

  14. Hube R, Keim M, Mayr HO (2009) The mini-midvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty. Oper Orthop Traumatol 21:3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keblish PA (1991) The lateral approach to the valgus knee. Surgical technique and analysis of 53 cases with over two-year follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:52–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. King J, Stamper DL, Schaad DC, Leopold SS (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 89:1497–1503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laskin RS (2007) Surgical exposure for total knee arthroplasty: for everything there is a season. J Arthroplasty 22:12–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Mahaluxmivala J, Bankes MJ, Nicolai P, Aldam CH, Allen PW (2001) The effect of surgeon experience on component positioning in 673 press fit condylar posterior cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 16:635–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin A, Sheinkop MB, Langhenry MM, Oelsch C, Widemschek M, von Strempel A (2009) Accuracy of side-cutting implantation instruments for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:374–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Martin A, von Strempel A (2006) Two-year Outcomes of Computed Tomography-based and Computed Tomography Free Navigation for Total Knee Arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 449:275–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin A, Wohlgenannt O, Prenn M, Oelsch C, Strempel A (2007) Imageless navigation for TKA increases implantation accuracy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:178–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C (2007) A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:236–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moreland JR (1988) Mechanisms of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:49–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Paley D, Pfeil J (2000) Principles of deformity correction around the knee. Orthopäde 29:18–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Plaskos C, Hodgson AJ, Inkpen K, McGraw RW (2002) Bone cutting errors in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB (1994) Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:153–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosenberger RE, Hoser C, Quirbach S, Attal R, Hennerbichler A, Fink C (2008) Improved accuracy of component alignment with the implementation of image-free navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:249–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 

  32. Siston RA, Goodman SB, Patel JJ, Delp SL, Giori NJ (2006) The high variability of tibial rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:65–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siston RA, Patel JJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL, Giori NJ (2005) The variability of femoral rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2276–2280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tria AJ Jr, Coon TM (2003) Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:185–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Victor J, Hoste D (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wysocki RW, Sheinkop MB, Virkus WW, Della Valle CJ (2008) Femoral fracture through a previous pin site after computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:462–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Teaching Hospital, Medical University of Innsbruck, Carinagasse 47, 6800, Feldkirch, Austria

    Arno Martin, Mark Widemschek & Archibald von Strempel

  2. Rush University Medical Center, Midwest Orthopaedics, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mitchell B. Sheinkop & Mary M. Langhenry

  3. Department for Biostatistics, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Benesch

Authors
  1. Arno Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mitchell B. Sheinkop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary M. Langhenry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Widemschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Benesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Archibald von Strempel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arno Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, A., Sheinkop, M.B., Langhenry, M.M. et al. Comparison of two minimally invasive implantation instrument-sets for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 359–366 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0957-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0957-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation