Advertisement

Quadriceps-Sparing Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Rodney K. Alan
  • Alfred J. Tria
Chapter

Abstract

Much of the pioneering work for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) took place during the 1970s. For several years, the prosthesis and bearing surfaces were the major focus of efforts to improve the surgery. The result of this evolution is seen in the current success rate of modern TKA.1–4

During the same period in history, minimally invasive techniques in general surgery and other subspecialties of surgery were beginning to develop. This trend eventually influenced orthopedic surgeons to attempt minimally invasive arthroplasty. The logical first step for minimally invasive TKA was to begin with unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA). The UKA implant was much smaller than the TKA implant. Repicci pioneered the concept of minimally invasive knee arthroplasty during the early 1990s. He demonstrated that UKA done through a small incision resulted in less blood loss, decreased morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and more rapid recovery.5 Since his report, other authors have written articles to support the outcome of minimally invasive UKA. Argenson and Price reported decreased morbidity and accelerated rehabi­litation with MIS UKA.6,7 After the successful reports of MIS surgery in UKA, investigators began to search for ways to carry out minimally invasive TKA.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Knee Society Score Tibial Tray Freehand Technique Unicompartmental Arthroplasty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health. NIH Consensus Statement on total knee replacement December 8–10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(6):1328–35Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ritter MA, Herbst SA, Keating EM, PM, Meding JB. Long-term survival analysis of a posterior cruciate-retaining total condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Dec;(309):136–45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott RD, Volatile TB. Twelve years’ experience with posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Apr;(205):100–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stern S, Insall J. Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(7):980–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Repicci JA, Eberle RW. Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc. 1999;8(1): 20–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argenson JN, Flecher X. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2004;11(5):341–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW; Oxford Hip and Knee Group. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8):970–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tria AJ Jr, Coon TM. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Nov;(416):185–90Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR. Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty: the early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Nov;(440):67–76Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faure BT, Benjamin JB, Lindsey B, Volz RG, Schutte D. Comparison of the subvastus and paramedian surgical approaches in bilateral knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8(5):511–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofmann AA, Plaster RL, Murdock LE. Subvastus (Southern) approach for primary total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Aug;(269):70–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matsueda M, Gustilo, RB. Subvastus and medial parapatellar approaches in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb;(371):161–8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roysam GS, Oakley MJ. Subvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, and observer-blinded trial. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(4):454–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boerger TO, Aglietti P, Mondanelli N, Sensi L. Mini-subvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Nov;(440):82–7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonutti PM, Mont MA, Kester MA. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a 10-feature evolutionary approach. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35(2):217–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongjunakorn A, Pittors K, Davis J, Shim JC, Pavlov H, Petersen M. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):74–81Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laskin RS. Acquired patella baja after total knee replacement may be related to patellar tendon eversion. Presented at the Annual Closed meeting of the Knee Society, September 29, 2006, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berger RA, Sanders S, Gerlinger T, Della Valle C, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG. Outpatient total knee arthroplasty with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 Suppl 3): 33–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen AF, Alan RK, Redziniak DE, Tria AJ Jr. Quadriceps sparing total knee replacement. The initial experience with results at two to four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88B(11): 1448–53Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodney K. Alan
    • 1
  • Alfred J. Tria
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Orthopaedic StudyThe Orthopaedic Center of New JerseySomersetUSA

Personalised recommendations