Affiliation:
1. G
2. Government T D Medical College, Alappuzha, Kerala, India
Abstract
In orthopaedic surgery, long-term outcome and prognosis are very crucial. Surgical methods to the knee joint and its surrounding structures vary, but they are all designed to provide the best access to a pathological area while protecting vital surrounding tissues. A perfectly aligned knee is required for installing a rotating platform device, which MPA can easily create. The subvastus method, on the other hand, allows for a perfect lateral exposure and a completely positioned knee.Currently, the medial patellar approach is favoured for Total Knee Replacement, however our theory suggests that the lateral corner can be better viewed with the subvastus approach, making it a superior option for Rotating Platform Device insertion in varus, valgus, and stiff knee situations. To determine the outcome of subvastus approach in all types of knee pathologies using mobile bearing rotating platform implant design. We conducted prospective analysis of patients with limited preoperative ROM (flexion ≤90°) of the knee who underwent TKA using subvastus approach and presenting the 6 months results. There were a total 60 patients (60 knees) with mean age 63 (range 49–79 years) years. The mean preoperative flexion was 44°. Postoperatively knee flexion improved by mean 95° (P < 0.05) which was significant as assed by paired t-test. The mean knee society score improved from 34 (range 20–60) preoperative to 78 (range 70–90) postoperatively (P < 0.05). Our findings show that employing the subvastus method, gratifying TKA results can be achieved in varus, valgus, and stiff knee cases with restricted preoperative ROM while maintaining the benefits of early mobilisation, reduced post-operative discomfort, and patient satisfaction.
Publisher
IP Innovative Publication Pvt Ltd
Subject
General Arts and Humanities
Reference13 articles.
1. Delport HP, Sloten J Vander, Bellemans J, Comparative gravimetric Wear Analysis in mobile versus fixed-bearing posterior stabilized total knee prostheses.Acta Orthop Belg 2010;76(3):367-73
2. Delport HP, Banks SA, DeSchepper J, Bellemans J, A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements.J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88(8):1016-21
3. Bullens PH, Loon CJ van, Malefijt MCW, Laan RF, Veth RP, Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: A comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments.J Arthroplasty 2001;16(6):740-7
4. Dickstein R, Heffes Y, Shabtai EI, Markowitz E, Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly: Patients’ self-appraisal 6 and 12 months postoperatively.Gerontology 1998;44(4):204-10
5. Cila E, Güzel V, Ozalay M, Tan J, Sims¸ek SA, Kanatli U, Subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002;122:65-8