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
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Not Reported
Conflitti:
None disclosed

Rischio di pregiudizio

6/10

Criteri di segnalazione

19/20

Indice di fragilità

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)?

Sì = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Non rilevante = 0

No = 0

La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.

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 di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.

Perché questo studio era necessario ora?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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?

Caratteristiche dello studio +
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)
Comparison:
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)
Outcomes:
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.
Methods:
RCT
Time:
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.
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

DISCLAIMER

Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.

0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
Ha raggiunto il suo limite di 4 visualizzazioni di articoli gratuiti questo mese

Accesso a OrthoEvidence a soli 1,99 dollari a settimana.

Rimanga in contatto con le ultime prove. Può disdire in qualsiasi momento.
  • Valutazioni critiche dei più recenti studi randomizzati controllati ad alto impatto e delle revisioni sistematiche in ortopedia.
  • Accesso ai contenuti del podcast OrthoEvidence, tra cui collaborazioni con il Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviste con chirurghi di fama internazionale e tavole rotonde su notizie e argomenti ortopedici.
  • Abbonamento a The Pulse, una newsletter bisettimanale basata sulle evidenze scientifiche, progettata per aiutarla a prendere decisioni cliniche migliori.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bentornato!
Ha dimenticato la password?
Inizi la sua prova gratuita oggi stesso!

Il suo account sarà affiliato a
e includerà l'accesso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
Ha dimenticato la password?

O
Controlli la sua e-mail

Se esiste un account con l'indirizzo e-mail fornito, le verrà inviata un'e-mail di reimpostazione della password. Se non vede l'e-mail, controlli la cartella spam o posta indesiderata.

Per ulteriore assistenza, contatti il nostro team di supporto.

Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Tradurre il Rapporto ACE

OrthoEvidence utilizza un servizio di traduzione di terze parti per rendere i contenuti accessibili in più lingue. Si prega di notare che, sebbene venga fatto ogni sforzo per garantire l'accuratezza, le traduzioni potrebbero non essere sempre perfette.

Come citare questo documento 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

Copiare la citazione
Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Funzionalità per i membri Premium

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence Premium.

Condividi questo articolo ACE Report