Minimally invasive total knee replacement : techniques and results

In this review, we outlined the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee replacement (TKR) and described the different surgical approaches reported in the literature. Afterwards we went through the most recent studies assessing MIS TKR. Next, we searched for potential limitations of MIS knee replacement and tried to answer the following questions: Are there selective criteria and specific patient selection for MIS knee surgery? If there are, then what are they? After all, a discussion and conclusion completed this article. There is certainly room for MIS or at least less invasive surgery (LIS) for appropriate selected patients. Nonetheless, there are differences between approaches. Mini medial parapatellar is easy to master, quick to perform and potentially extendable, whereas mini subvastus and mini midvastus are trickier and require more caution related to risk of hematoma and VMO nerve damage. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of mini-incision surgery for TKR does not appear fully adequate for the procedure to be used without special arrangements for consent and for audit or continuing research. There is an argument that a sudden jump from standard TKR to MIS TKR, especially without computer assistance such as navigation, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) or robotic, may breach a surgeon's duty of care toward patients because it exposes patients to unnecessary risks. As a final point, more evidence is required on the long-term safety and efficacy of this procedure which will give objective shed light on real benefits of MIS TKR

Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using mini midvastus or medial parapatellar approach technique

Background: Despite the growing evidence in the literature there is still a lack of consensus regarding the use of minimally invasive surgical technique (MIS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: A prospective, randomized, international multicentre trial including 69 patients was performed to compare computer-assisted TKA (CAS-TKA) using either mini-midvastus (MIS group) or standard medial parapatellar approach (conventional group). Patients from 3 centers (Maastricht, Zwickau, Adelaide) with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee were randomized to either an MIS group with dedicated instrumentation or a conventional group to receive cruciate retaining CAS-TKA without patella resurfacing. The primary outcome was to compare post operative pain and range of motion (ROM). The secondary outcome was to measure the duration of surgery, blood loss, chair rise test, quadriceps strength, anterior knee pain, Knee Society Score (KSS), WOMAC scores, mechanical leg axis and component alignment. Results: Patients in the MIS group (3.97 +/- 2.16) had significant more pain at 2 weeks than patients in the conventional group (2.77 +/- 1.43) p = 0.003. There was no significant difference in any of the other primary outcome parameters. Surgery time was significantly longer (p <0.001) and there were significantly higher blood loss (p = 0.002) in the MIS group as compared to the conventional group. The difference of the mean mechanical leg alignment between the groups was not statistically significant (-0.43 degrees (95 % CI -1.50 - 0.64); p = 0.43). There was no significant difference of component alignment between the two surgical groups with respect to flexion/extension (p = 0.269), varus/valgus (p = 0.653) or rotational alignment (p = 0.485) of the femur component and varus valgus alignment (p = 0.778) or posterior slope (p = 0.164) of the tibial component. Conclusion: There was no advantage of the MIS approach compared to a conventional approach CAS-TKA in any of the primary outcome measurements assessed, however the MIS approach was associated with longer surgical time and greater blood loss. MIS-TKA in combination with computer navigation is safe in terms of implant positioning