Cargando…

A Medial Subvastus Approach for Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Technique Description and Early Outcome Results

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) treats arthritis involving only one compartment of the knee. Lateral UKA is mainly performed through medial parapatellar or lateral parapatellar approaches to the knee. This technique article introduces a medial subvastus approach to lateral UKA,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fuller, Robert M., Wicker, Daniel I., Getman, Grace W., Christensen, Katherine S., Christensen, Christian P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34195316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.013
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) treats arthritis involving only one compartment of the knee. Lateral UKA is mainly performed through medial parapatellar or lateral parapatellar approaches to the knee. This technique article introduces a medial subvastus approach to lateral UKA, discusses the clinical rationale behind its use, and offers a preliminary retrospective study on short-term outcomes of lateral UKAs using the lateral vs medial subvastus approaches. METHODS: A description of the medial subvastus approach is included. In addition, we reviewed 32 and 30 lateral UKAs performed using the lateral and medial subvastus approaches, respectively. Minimum follow-up duration was 1 year. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS, JR) knee scores were used for comparison. RESULTS: Age and body mass index were similar between the 2 cohorts. Mean KOOS, JR. scores for the subvastus approach group were significantly higher than those for the lateral approach group at 81.41 ± 2.0 for medial subvastus and 74.19 ± 2.9 for lateral (P = .02). One deep infection and 2 revision total knee arthroplasties occurred in the lateral approach group. Neither occurred in the subvastus group. The mean follow-up duration was significantly longer for the lateral approach group than that for the subvastus group at 749 vs 410 days (P < .001). Literature on time-dependence of patient-reported outcomes supports usage of the data, despite follow-up discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: A subvastus approach for lateral UKA may offer improved visualization, easier conversion to total knee arthroplasty, and faster recovery, based on clinical observation. Preliminary results suggest improved short-term knee scores compared to a lateral approach.