Cargando…
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
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 conve...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793439/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33429813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024209 |
_version_ | 1783633991104987136 |
---|---|
author | Jia, Qiong Chen, Xin Zhang, Jun Hu, Yang |
author_facet | Jia, Qiong Chen, Xin Zhang, Jun Hu, Yang |
author_sort | Jia, Qiong |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7793439 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77934392021-01-11 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 Jia, Qiong Chen, Xin Zhang, Jun Hu, Yang Medicine (Baltimore) 7000 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). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7793439/ /pubmed/33429813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024209 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
spellingShingle | 7000 Jia, Qiong Chen, Xin Zhang, Jun Hu, Yang 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | 7000 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793439/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33429813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024209 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jiaqiong whichisthebetterchoiceaclinicalcohortstudyprotocolevaluatingthedifferencesbetweenstandardmedialparapatellarandminimallyinvasiveapproachesintotalkneereplacement AT chenxin whichisthebetterchoiceaclinicalcohortstudyprotocolevaluatingthedifferencesbetweenstandardmedialparapatellarandminimallyinvasiveapproachesintotalkneereplacement AT zhangjun whichisthebetterchoiceaclinicalcohortstudyprotocolevaluatingthedifferencesbetweenstandardmedialparapatellarandminimallyinvasiveapproachesintotalkneereplacement AT huyang whichisthebetterchoiceaclinicalcohortstudyprotocolevaluatingthedifferencesbetweenstandardmedialparapatellarandminimallyinvasiveapproachesintotalkneereplacement |