Comparison of the clinical and radiological outcomes following midvastus and medial parapatellar approaches for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Author:

Tao Li,Qianyu Zhuang,Ke Xiao,Lei Zhou,Xisheng Weng

Abstract

Background Controversy still exists regarding whether medial parapatellar approach (MP) or midvastus approach (MV) is preferable in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) up to now. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes following the MV or MP for TKA. Methods A comprehensive search of unrestricted-language literature of all studies comparing MP with MV was conducted through the electronic literature databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG. Retrieval time was from the time when databases were built to October 2013. Manual search of relevant trials, reviews, and related articles was also performed. Outcomes of interest included postoperative knee extensor and flexor function, postoperative pain, patella tilt, and complications. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) from each trial were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary. Results Twenty-one randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 1 188 patients (1 450 knees) were eligible. Our results showed that MV was associated with better early postoperative extension (WMD=-1.26, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.16, P=0.02) and flexion (WMD=10.13, 95% CI 5.36 to 14.90, P <0.01), less postoperative pain (WMD=-0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07, P=0.002), and no greater risk for complications than MP. The patella tilt did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD=-0.70, 95% CI -1.94 to 0.54, P=0.27). Conclusions MV may be a better approach than MP, as it improves postoperative early joint function and decreases pain. Future multi-center randomized controlled studies with large sample sizes are required to verify the current findings.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3