Lateral Subvastus Lateralis versus Medial Parapatellar Approach for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Patient Outcomes and Kinematics Analysis

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The conventional approach for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a medial parapatellar approach (MPA). We aimed to study patient outcomes and kinematics with a quadriceps sparing lateral subvastus lateralis approach (SLA). Patients with neutral/varus alignment undergoing primary TKA were consented to undergo the SLA. At 1-year postoperative, patients underwent radiostereometric analysis. Patients were administered the Short Form 12 (SF-12), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Society Score (KSS). Kinematics and outcome data were compared to a group undergoing TKA via conventional MPA. Fourteen patients underwent TKA via SLA with a mean age 71.5 ± 8.0 and mean body mass index (BMI) 31.0 ± 4.5. The MPA group had 13 patients with mean age 63.4 ± 5.5 (p = 0.006) and mean BMI 31.2 ± 4.6 (p = 0.95). The SLA resulted in a significantly more posterior medial contact point at 0 (p = 0.011), 20 (p = 0.020), and 40 (p = 0.039) degrees of flexion. There was no significant difference in medial contact point from 60 to 120 degrees, lateral contact point at any degree of flexion, or axial rotation. There was no difference in improvement in postoperative WOMAC, SF-12, KSS function, and total KSS knee scores between groups. The MPA group had a significantly greater improvement in KSS knee scores at 3 months (p < 0.001), 1 year (p = 0.003), and 2 years (p = 0.017). The SLA resulted in increased medial femoral rollback early in flexion. Although both approaches resulted in improved postoperative outcomes, the MPA group showed significantly greater improvements in KSS knee scores at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Further studies are required to identify any benefits that the SLA may offer.

Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level II

Publication History

Received: 05 February 2023

Accepted: 23 October 2023

Article published online:
22 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Van Onsem S, Verstraete M, Van Eenoo W, Van Der Straeten C, Victor J. Are TKA kinematics during closed kinetic chain exercises associated with patient-reported outcomes? A preliminary analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Vaishya R, Vijay V, Demesugh DM, Agarwal AK. Surgical approaches for total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2016; 7 (02) 71-79
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Stern SH, Moeckel BH, Insall JN. Total knee arthroplasty in valgus knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 5-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Von Langenbeck B. Zur resection des kniegellenks. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Churg. 1878; 7: 23-30
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Legault JA, Beveridge TS, Johnson MI, Lanting BA. Subvastus lateralis approach to total knee arthroplasty – a cadaveric evaluation. 2018; 32 (1_supplement): 644.7-644.7
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Sidhu SP, Moslemian A, Yamomo G. et al. Lateral subvastus lateralis versus medial parapatellar approach for total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Knee 2020; 27 (06) 1735-1745
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Teeter MG, Perry KI, Yuan X, Howard JL, Lanting BA. Contact kinematic differences between gap balanced vs measured resection techniques for single radius posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (06) 1834-1838
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Williams HA, Broberg JS, Howard JL, Lanting BA, Teeter MG. Effect of gap balancing and measured resection techniques on implant migration and contact kinematics of a cementless total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2021; 31: 86-96
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Broberg JS, Ndoja S, MacDonald SJ, Lanting BA, Teeter MG. Comparison of contact kinematics in posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty at long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (01) 272-277
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Morcos MW, Lanting BA, Webster J, Howard JL, Bryant D, Teeter MG. Effect of medial soft tissue releases during posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty on contact kinematics and patient-reported outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (06) 1110-1115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Angerame MR, Holst DC, Jennings JM, Komistek RD, Dennis DA. Total knee arthroplasty kinematics. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (10) 2502-2510
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Broberg JS, Naudie DDR, Howard JL, Vasarhelyi EM, McCalden RW, Teeter MG. Contact kinematics of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2020; 27 (05) 1501-1509
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK. et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1171-1178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Bellamy N. The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23 (5, Suppl 39): S148-S153
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Hakozaki A, Kanagawa H, Toyama Y, Suda Y. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty through a lateral approach. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (06) 973-979
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Flandry F, Hommel G. Normal anatomy and biomechanics of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2011; 19 (02) 82-92
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Freeman MA, Pinskerova V. The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint. J Biomech 2005; 38 (02) 197-208
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Most E, Zayontz S, Li G, Otterberg E, Sabbag K, Rubash HE. Femoral rollback after cruciate-retaining and stabilizing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (410) 101-113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Zingde SM, Slamin J. Biomechanics of the knee joint, as they relate to arthroplasty. Orthop Trauma 2017; 31 (01) 1-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gonzalez-Parreño S, Martinez-Mendez D, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA. Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (05) 1473-1478
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bin Abd Razak HR, Tan CS, Chen YJD. et al. Age and Preoperative Knee Society Score are significant predictors of outcomes among Asians following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (09) 735-741
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Batailler C, Lording T, De Massari D, Witvoet-Braam S, Bini S, Lustig S. Predictive models for clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic analysis. Arthroplast Today 2021; 9: 1-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Maldonado DR, Laseter JR, Kyin C, Lall AC, Domb BG. Direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty leads to superior outcomes at 3-month follow-up when compared with the posterior approach: a matched study using propensity score analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2019; 3 (12) e19.00118
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Torres A, Goldberg T, Bush JW, Mahometa MJ. Learning curve for direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Proc 2019; 101-B (SUPP_4): 66-66
  PubMedGoogle Scholar