Which is the better choice? A clinical cohort study protocol evaluating the differences between standard medial parapatellar and minimally invasive approaches in total knee replacement. Issue 1 (8th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jia, Qiong; Chen, Xin; Zhang, Jun; Hu, Yang
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 100:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01-08
• Subjects: medial parapatellar approach -- minimally invasive approach -- protocol -- retrospective -- total knee replacement; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024209
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There is still a lack of consensus on the best approach for total knee replacement (TKR). We carried out this present retrospective cohort study to assess the overall safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive approach without the use of computer navigation in comparison with conventional TKR. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who receiving the primary TKR in the same institution from 2014 to 2016 was conducted. The inclusion criteria for the study indicated that the patient required a unilateral or bilateral TKR was between 18 and 80 years' old, provided informed consent, was followed up for at least 2 years, and was in stable health. There was no treatment for any condition or condition that might pose a risk of excessive surgery. The same TKR standard rehabilitation program was provided to all patients. Data were collected on patient demographics, anesthesia style, American Society of Anesthesiology scores, tourniquet duration, and surgical drainage loss. Our primary outcome measure was discharge time. Secondary outcomes included duration of surgery, incidence of postoperative complications, imaging location 6 weeks after surgery, Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and knee ROM. Complications were recorded and classified as surgical site, thromboembolic, systemic, or requiring reoperation. Results: It was assumed that there is a remarkable difference in postoperative outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The limitations of our present research include the inherent limitations in any retrospective cohort research, including the observation bias and possibility of selection. Trial registration: This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6349).