ACE Report Cover
TKA: Mini-midvastus approach yields better short-term outcomes vs. parapatellar approach
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
TKA: Mini-midvastus approach yields better short-term outcomes vs. parapatellar approach .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(14):6 PLoS One. 2014 May 20;9(5):e95311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095311. eCollection 2014.
Auteurs contributeurs

SZ Xu XJ Lin X Tong XW Wang

18 randomized controlled trials (937 patients; 1093 TKAs) comparing the mini-midvastus and parapatellar approaches in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were included in this meta-analysis. The purpose of this review was to compare these two treatment approaches with respect to postoperative pain, function and complications. Pooled data indicated that, although associated with a significantly longer operative time, the mini-midvastus approach yielded significantly better pain scores and range of motion at 1-2 weeks post-operation, compared to the parapatellar approach. Furthermore, both groups exhibited similar Knee Society Scores, rates of lateral retinacular release, blood loss, straight leg raise, hospital stay and postoperative complications.


Détails du financement de la publication +
Financement:
Non-funded
Conflits:
None disclosed

Risque de partialité

10/10

Critères de déclaration

18/20

Indice de fragilité

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

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

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

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 ?

In an attempt to minimize pain and promote recovery in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) minimally-invasive techniques have been adopted for this type of surgical procedure. Traditionally, minimally-invasive TKA (MIS TKA) has been performed using either a subvastus or quadriceps-sparing approach; however, these techniques involve small surgical fields and longer operative times. As a result, the mini-midvastus approach was proposed to address some of these concerns. As several high-quality trials have compared these techniques to date, this meta-analysis was needed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mini-midvastus and standard parapatellar approach in patients undergoing TKA.

Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?

With respect to clinical efficacy and safety, how does the mini-midvastus approach compare to the parapatellar approach in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty?

Caractéristiques de l'étude +
Source des données:
PubMed (1950-Oct 2013), EMBASE (1974-Oct 2013), Cochrane Library (issue 9, 2013), and Web of Science (1980-Oct 2013) were searched. A manual search of the reference lists of all relevant articles was also performed. Furthermore, Google Scholar was also searched.
Termes de l'index:
The following search strategies were used for this meta-analysis: (1) Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee [Mesh] OR knee arthroplasty OR knee replacement; (2) parapatellar OR standard OR conventional; (3) midvastus OR mini-midvastus OR vastus splitting; and (4) #1 AND #2 AND #3.
Sélection de l'étude:
Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were included if they: (1) were randomized controlled trials; (2) included adult patients undergoing primary TKA; and (3) compared the mini-midvastus approach to the standard parapatellar approach.
Extraction des données:
Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, with disagreements being resolved through discussion. The primary outcomes were Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain. Secondary outcomes included knee range of motion (ROM), operative time, lateral retinacular release, blood loss, straight leg raise, hospital stay, and postoperative complications (i.e. total complications, deep vein thrombosis, and wound infection).
Synthèse des données:
Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2 software. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated, respectively, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by performing the X-squared test and by computing the I-squared statistic. When heterogeneity was significant (i.e. I-squared>50%), a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Conversely, when heterogeneity was not significant (i.e. I-squared 50% or less), a fixed-effects model was used.
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
  • 18 randomized controlled trials (937 patients; 1093 TKAs) were included in this meta-analysis.
  • With respect to Knee Society Scores (KSS), there were no significant between-group differences at 6 weeks (MD 5.15 [95% CI -3.36 to 13.66]; p=0.24), 3 months (MD 0.55 [-1.14 to 2.50]; p=0.59), 6 months (MD -2.15 [-5.92 to 1.62]; p=0.26), or 1 year (MD 0.66 [-0.68 to 1.99]; p=0.33) post-operation.
  • VAS scores were found to be significantly lower in the mini-midvastus group versus the parapatellar group at 1-2 weeks post-operation (MD -0.20 [95% CI -0.29 to 0.11]; p<0.01). There were no between-group differences at any other time point: 3 days (p=0.42), 6 weeks (p=0.22), 3 months (p=0.82) and 6 months (p=0.80) post-operation.
  • ROM was significantly higher using the mini-midvastus approach compared to the parapatellar approach at 1-2 weeks post-operation (MD 7.45 [95% CI 3.26 to 11.64]; p<0.05). There were no between-group differences at any other time point: 6 weeks (p=0.36), 3 months (p=0.46) and 6 months (p=0.47).
  • The mini-midvastus approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time compared to the parapatellar approach (MD 11.64 [95% CI 5.50 to 17.78]; p<0.05).
  • There was no significant difference between groups in lateral retinacular release (p=0.12), blood loss (p=0.33), straight leg raise (p=0.13), hospital stay (p=0.79), total complications (p=0.88), wound infection (p=0.64) or deep vein thrombosis (p=0.22).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?

Although associated with a significantly longer operative time, the mini-midvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty (MIS TKA) yielded significantly better pain scores and range of motion in the short-term (i.e. 1-2 weeks post-operation), compared to the parapatellar approach. These outcomes were statistically similar between groups at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post-operation. Furthermore, both groups exhibited similar Knee Society Scores, rates of lateral retinacular release, blood loss, straight leg raise, hospital stay and postoperative complications.

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

The results from this study suggest that, despite longer operative times, the mini-midvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with superior range of motion and pain scores in the short-term (i.e. 1-2 weeks postoperatively), when compared to the parapatellar approach. As heterogeneity among studies was significant for some analyses, additional research is required to confirm these results.

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. TKA: Mini-midvastus approach yields better short-term outcomes vs. parapatellar approach. OE Journal. 2014;2(14):6. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/tka-mini-midvastus-approach-yields-better-short-term-outcomes-vs-parapatellar-approach

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