Pescador D, Moreno AA, Blanco JF, García I

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 353-358
PDF size: 57.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Knee arthroplasty is the treatment of choice for gonarthrosis. The development of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires assessing results based on the classical approaches and this is the purpose of our study. Methods: Randomized, prospective study comparing two groups; one underwent MIS (45 patients) and the second one a classical approach (51 patients); both groups were comparable. The following variables were assessed in the immediate postoperative period and at 4 and 8 years: blood loss, pain according to the VAS, flexion and extension and quality of life measured with the SF-36. Results: In the immediate postoperative period we observed statistically significant differences (p ‹ 0.05) in favor of the MIS approach in pain, hospital stay and blood loss. However, this was not observed at 4 and 8 years concerning pain, quality of life and range of motion. We observed an improvement in the functional scale and quality of life compared with the preoperative status, without any differences when both groups were compared. Conclusions: The MIS technique results in a better immediate postoperative period, but no differences were seen in the choice of the approach 4 and 8 years after surgery.

REFERENCES

1. Fernández-López JC: Prevalence, risk factors, and impact of knee pain suggesting osteoarthritis in Spain. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008; 26(2): 324-32.

2. Nuñez M: Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis and analysis of pain, rigidity and functional incapacity. Orthopedics 2008; 31(8): 753.

3. Tria AJ, Jr: Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416): 185-90.

4. Shankar NS: Minimally invasive technique in total knee arthroplasty–history, tips, tricks and pitfalls. Injury 2006; 37(Suppl 5): S25-S30.

5. Gesell MW: MIS unicondylar knee arthroplasty: surgical approach and early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428): 53-60.

6. Goble EM: Minimally invasive total knee replacement: principles and technique. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35(2): 235-45.

7. Schindler OS: Minimally invasive surgery of the knee. J Perioper Pract 2007; 17(11): 535-42.

8. Hofmann S: Development, terminology, principles, and controversies in minimally invasive knee arthroplasty. Orthopade 2007; 36(12): 1086-92.

9. Lonner JH: Minimally invasive approaches to total knee arthroplasty: results. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2006; 35(Suppl 7): 27-9.

10. Alonso J: Population reference values of the spanish version of the Health Questionnaire SF-36. Med Clin (Barc) 1998; 111(11): 410-6.

11. Vilagut G: The spanish version of the short form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments. Gac Sanit 2005; 19(2): 135-50.

12. Vilagut G: Interpretation of SF-36 and SF-12 questionnaires in Spain: physical and mental components. Med Clin (Barc) 2008; 130(19): 726-35.

13. Reid JB III: Minimally invasive surgery-total knee arthroplasty. Arthroscopy 2004; 20(8): 884-9.

14. Scuderi GR: Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: surgical technique. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2006; 35(Suppl 7): 7-11.

15. Bonutti PM: Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a 10-feature evolutionary approach. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35(2): 217-26.

16. Tria AJ: Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the importance of instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35(2): 227-34.

17. Coon TM: Specialized instruments and modular implants for minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2006; 35(Suppl 7): 12-7.

18. López-García E: Population-based reference values for the spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey in the elderly. Med Clin (Barc) 2003; 120(15): 568-73.

19. Hernández-Vaquero D: Total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision or a standard incision. Similar results at six months follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11: 27.

20. Watanabe T: 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 2009; 14(5): 589-95.

21. Barrack RL: Minimal incision surgery as a risk factor for early failure of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24(4): 489-98.

22. Schroer WC: Mini-subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23(1): 19-25.

23. Shen H: Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty through a quadriceps sparing approach: a comparative study. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2007; 45(16): 1083-6.

24. Tanavalee A: Results of the 136 consecutive minimally invasive total knee arthroplasties. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88(Suppl 4): S74-8.

25. Yu JK: Comparative study on early period of recovery between minimally invasive surgery total knee arthroplasty and minimally invasive surgery-quadriceps sparing total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. Chin Med J 2008; 121(15): 1353-7.

26. Cheng T: Does minimally invasive surgery improve short-term recovery in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 13: 45-50.

27. Wohlrab D: Influence of the surgical approach on postoperative rehabilitation after TKA. Z Orthop Unfall 2008; 146(2): 200-5.

28. Laskin RS: Minimally invasive total knee replacement using a mini-mid vastus incision technique and results. Surg Technol Int 2004; 13: 231-8.

29. Coon TM: The economic impact of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 2006; 35(Suppl 7): 33-5.

30. Ohnsorge JA: Special surgical technique of minimally invasive total knee replacement. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006; 144(1): 91-6.

31. Tsuji S: Is Minimally invasive surgery-total knee arthroplasty truly less invasive than standard total knee arthroplasty? A quantitative evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2009; 11: 27-9.

32. Vavken P: Outcomes after minimally invasive total knee replacement –a meta-analysis. Z Orthop Unfall 2008; 146(6): 768-72.

33. Laskin RS: Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428): 74-81.