ACE Report Cover
MIS not better than conventional technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
ARTHROPLASTY
MIS not better than conventional technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty .
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(6):25 Acta Orthop. 2012 Dec;83(6):634-41. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.736169. Epub 2012 Oct 8

40 patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with local anaesthetic infiltration were randomized to receive a minimally invasive or conventional surgical procedure to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) would result in earlier postoperative home-readiness, as well as improved pain and functional outcomes. Follow-up was conducted over 6 months postoperatively. The results indicated that there were no benefits to using MIS techniques over conventional techniques as there were no differences in the outcomes.


Détails du financement de la publication +
Financement:
Not Reported
Conflits:
None disclosed

Risque de partialité

6/10

Critères de déclaration

19/20

Indice de fragilité

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Oui = 1

Incertain = 0,5

Non pertinent = 0

Non = 0

L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.

4/4

Randomization

3/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

4/4

Therapy Description

4/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.

Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?

Many studies have investigated procedures that focused on improving postoperative pain and mobilization in patients following knee arthroplasty. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) was developed with respect to these criteria in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on the basis that it caused less trauma to the soft tissue surrounding the knee and improved patient outcomes. However, the MIS technique is more demanding than conventional methods, and some surgeons hesitate to use it due to its longer learning curve. Moreover, there has been recent interest in the investigation of the importance of MIS with local anaesthetic infiltration, indicating the need for this study.

Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?

Did the use of minimally invasive surgery with local infiltration analgesia in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty lead to improved postoperative outcomes in pain management and mobilization when compared to conventional surgery, assessed over a 6 month period?

Caractéristiques de l'étude +
Population:
40 patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with local infiltration analgesia technique. (n=38 completed follow-up, 2 patients converted to total knee arthroplasty intraoperatively)
Intervention:
Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Group: Patients underwent UKA using a minimally invasive technique. The knee was exposed via an 8 to 10 cm medial parapatellar skin incision from the medial pole of the patella distally to the medial side of the tibial tuberosity, and a medial parapatellar arthrotomy was carried from the base of the patella distally to the medial side of the tibial tuberosity (2-3cm below joint line). A retractor was then placed behind the patella tendon for visualization of the lateral compartment. (n=20)
Comparaison:
Conventional (CON) Surgery Group: Patients underwent a medial UKA using a conventional technique. The knee was exposed via a 15 to 20 cm midline incision, followed by medial parapatellar arthrotomy from the base of the patella distally to medial side of the tibial tuberosity, and extended 5 to 10 cm proximally into the rectus tendon of the quadriceps for evertion and dislocation of the patella. (n=18)
Résultats:
Primary outcome measure was postoperative home-readiness based on criteria necessary for discharge. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative pain (VAS-pain), analgesic consumption, functional outcome (patient satisfaction, Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D questionnaire, knee extension and knee flexion), mobilization (Time to up and go (TUG) test), and adverse events.
Méthodes:
RCT
Durée de l'intervention:
Primary outcome follow-up conducted 21 hours postoperatively and subsequently 3 times daily thereafter until discharge. Follow-up of analgesic consumption and patient satisfaction was conducted at 1, 2, 3, and 7 days postoperatively. Follow-up of knee extension, knee flexion, and TUG test was conducted at 24h, discharge, 3, 7, 14 days, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Follow-up of Oxford knee score was conducted at 14 days, 3 and 6 months, and EQ-5D questionnaires at 3 and 6 months.
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
  • Time of fulfillment for discharge criteria (home-readiness) did not statistically differ between groups (p=0.6), with the median discharge 24 (21-71) hours in the MIS group and 24 (21-46) hours in the CON group. Length of hospital stay also did not significantly differ (p=0.7).
  • VAS-pain scores at rest and 60 degrees flexion did not significantly differ between groups at any time.
  • There was no significant difference in analgesic consumption between groups at any time during follow up. (1 day p=0.2, 2 days p=0.6, 3 days p=0.3, 7 days p=0.2)
  • Postoperative functional outcomes of patient satisfaction, Oxford Knee Score, and EQ-5D questionnaire did not significantly differ at any point during follow-up (p>0.05).
  • There were numerical differences indicating better maximum knee extension and knee flexion in the MIS group, however these did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05).
  • Postoperative mobilization assessed by the "time to up and go" (TUG) test showed no difference between groups at any point during follow up (p>0.05).
  • Incidences of adverse events on the first postoperative were similar between groups, but nausea was significant higher in MIS patients on the second postoperative day (p=0.006). No postoperative complications were encountered in either group during the 6-month follow up period
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?

MIS technique for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with local anaesthetic infiltration did not provide any advantages over a conventional surgical technique with respect to postoperative home-readiness, pain, functional outcome, mobilization and adverse events.

Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?

The operating surgeon should decide whether to use a conventional or an MIS technique for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty based on preference and the individual patient characteristics, as both procedures provide similar outcomes. Further clinical assessments with extended follow-up periods may prove useful in examining any differences in long-term outcomes.

AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ

Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
Vous avez atteint votre limite de 4 vues d'articles gratuits ce mois-ci

Accédez à OrthoEvidence pour seulement 1,99 $ par semaine.

Restez informé des dernières données. Annulez à tout moment.
  • Évaluations critiques des derniers essais contrôlés randomisés à fort impact et des revues systématiques en orthopédie.
  • Accès au contenu des podcasts OrthoEvidence, y compris les collaborations avec le Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, les entretiens avec des chirurgiens de renommée internationale et les tables rondes sur l'actualité et les sujets orthopédiques.
  • Abonnement à The Pulse, une lettre d'information bihebdomadaire fondée sur des données probantes, conçue pour vous aider à prendre de meilleures décisions cliniques.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenue à nouveau !
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?
Commencez votre essai GRATUIT dès aujourd'hui !

Votre compte sera affilié à
et inclut un accès gratuit à OrthoEvidence.


OU
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?

OU
Veuillez vérifier votre adresse électronique

Si un compte existe avec l'adresse e-mail fournie, un e-mail de réinitialisation du mot de passe vous sera envoyé. Si vous ne voyez pas d'e-mail, veuillez vérifier votre dossier de spam ou de courrier indésirable.

Pour plus d'assistance, contactez notre équipe d'assistance.

Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Traduire le rapport ACE

OrthoEvidence utilise un service de traduction tiers pour rendre le contenu accessible dans plusieurs langues. Veuillez noter que même si tous les efforts sont faits pour assurer l'exactitude, les traductions ne sont pas toujours parfaites.

Comment citer ce document ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. MIS not better than conventional technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. OE Journal. 2013;1(6):25. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/mis-not-better-than-conventional-technique-for-unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty

Copier la citation
Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Fonctionnalité Membre Premium

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte Premium OrthoEvidence.

Partager ACE Report