The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 8-13 , January 2007

Clinical Experience Using a Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Early Results of a Prospective Randomized Study Compared to a Standard Approach

  • Frank R. Kolisek, MD

      Affiliations

    • OrthoIndy, Indiania Orthopaedic Surgery Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • ,
  • Peter M. Bonutti, MD

      Affiliations

    • Bonutti Clinic, Effingham, Illinois
    • ,
  • William J. Hozack, MD

      Affiliations

    • Rothman Institute at Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • ,
  • James Purtill, MD

      Affiliations

    • Rothman Institute at Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • ,
  • Peter F. Sharkey, MD

      Affiliations

    • Rothman Institute at Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • ,
  • Steven B. Zelicof, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York Medical College, St. Agnes Medical Services Building, White Plains, New York
    • ,
  • Phillip S. Ragland, MD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Joint Preservation and Reconstruction, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
    • ,
  • Mark Kester, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, New Jersey
    • ,
  • Michael A. Mont, MD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Joint Preservation and Reconstruction, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Michael A. Mont, MD, Center for Joint Preservation and Reconstruction, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 2401 West Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215.
    • ,
  • Richard H. Rothman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Rothman Institute at Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Received 25 July 2005 ,Accepted 8 June 2006.

References 

  1. Scuderi GR, Tria AJ. Zimmer Global Webcast features minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty as training tool for orthopaedic surgeons. Medical Professional [serial online] 2003;Available at http://www.zimmer.comLast accessed July 5, 2006
  2. Buechel FF. Long-term follow-up after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop. 2002;404:40
  3. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1997;345:79
  4. Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM, et al. Long-term follow-up of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop. 2002;404:34
  5. Mont MA, Stuchin SA, Paley D, et al. Different surgical options for monocompartmental osteonecrosis of the knee: high tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, versus total knee arthroplasty: indications, techniques, results, and controversies. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:265
  6. Rand JA, Ilstrup DM. Survivorship analysis of total knee arthroplasty: cumulative rates of survival of 9200 total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:397
  7. Scott WN, Rubinstein M, Scuderi G. Results after knee replacement with a posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:1163
  8. Stern SH, Insall JN. Posterior stabilized prosthesis: results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:980
  9. Bullens PH, vanLoon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:740
  10. Dickstein R, Heffes Y, Shabtai EI, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly: patients' self-appraisal 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Gerontology. 1998;44:204
  11. Mont MA, Ragland P. Functional results of patients with total knee replacements with excellent Knee Society scores. In: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting. 2005;
  12. Carlsson LV, Albrektsson BE, Regner LR. Minimally invasive surgery versus conventional exposure using the Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a randomized radiostereometric study. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:151
  13. Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE. Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open, unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(7 Suppl 1):2
  14. Fuchs S, Rolauffs B, Plaumann T, et al. Clinical and functional results after the rehabilitation period in minimally invasive unicondylar knee arthroplasty patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005 Apr;13:179
  15. Meck RM, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacements: rationale and current indications. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:191
  16. Muller PE, Poellengohr C, Witt M, et al. Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:296
  17. Price A, Webb J, Topf H, et al. Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:970
  18. Repicci JA. Mini-invasive knee unicompartmental arthroplasty: bone-sparing technique. Surg Technol Int. 2003;11:280
  19. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA. Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg. 2002;15:17
  20. Yang KY, Wang MC, Yeo SJ, et al. Minimally invasive unicondylar versus total condylar knee arthroplasty—early results of a matched-pair comparison. Singapore Med J. 2003;44:554
  21. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, Kester MA. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a 10 feature evolutionary approach. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:217
  22. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M, et al. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg-Am. 2004;86(Suppl 2):41
  23. Bonutti PM, Neal DJ, Kester MA. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty using the suspended leg technique. Orthopedics. 2003;26:899
  24. Digioia AM, Blendea S, Jaramaz B. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery: minimally invasive hip and knee reconstruction. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:183
  25. Goble EM, Justin DF. Minimally invasive total knee replacement: principles and techniques. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:235
  26. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop. 2004;428:68
  27. Laskin RS. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop. 2005;440:54
  28. Laskin RS. Minimally invasive total knee replacement using a mini-midvastus incision technique and results. Surg Technol Int. 2004;13:231
  29. Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongiunakorr A, et al. Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop. 2004;428:74
  30. Tria AJ. Advancements in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2003;26(8 Suppl):859
  31. Tria AJ. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the importance of instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:227
  32. Tria AJ, Coon TM. Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop. 2003;416:185
  33. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, et al. Rationale of the Knee Society, clinical rating system. Clin Orthop. 1989;248:13
  34. Feller JA, Bartlett RJ, Lang DM. Patellar resurfacing versus retention in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1996;78:226
  35. Mont MA, Fairbank AC, Yammamoto V, et al. Radiographic characterization of aseptically loosened cementless total knee replacement. A comparison to a directly matched control group. Clin Orthop. 1995;321:73
  36. Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg-Am. 1987;69:745

 Benefits or funds were received in partial or total support of the research material described in this article from Stryker Orthopaedics.

PII: S0883-5403(06)00466-9

doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.06.004

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 8-13 , January 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution