ArticleCureus2022
A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study Between Midvastus and Standard Medial Parapatellar Approaches for Total Knee Replacement Regarding the Peri-Operative Factors.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to determine whether the midvastus (MV) approach in patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) results in differences regarding peri-operative parameters, such as surgical time, blood loss, transfusion need and complications, when compared with medial parapatellar approach (MP). Methods This was a prospective randomized comparative study of patients who received primary TKR. The first group consisted of patients where the MP approach was used and the second those where the MV approach was utilized. Patient's age, body mass index (BMI), stage of osteoarthritis (OA), prosthesis design, duration of surgery, blood loss in the drainage, hemoglobin (Hb), and intra-operative complications were recorded. Results From December 2019 to June 2020 a total of 107 (22 males, 85 females) and 38 (seven males, 31 females) patients were operated on with the MP and MV approaches, respectively. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, BMI, gender and stage of OA, however, pre-operative haemoglobin (Hb) was higher in the MP group [mean 13,5 (1.3) versus 13.1 (0.73)]. There was no significant difference in Hb decline pre- and post-operatively and in drain volume between groups. The mean Hb drop was similar for the MP [-2.2 (1.08)] and MV [-2.52 (1.06)] groups, and even though the transfusion rates were lower for the MP group, it did not reach significance. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the MV group, with a mean time of 95.6 (12.94) minutes versus 89.4 (14.28) in the MP group. Overall complications did not differ significantly among the two surgical approaches. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that pre-operative Hb [OR 2.6 95% CI (1.43, 4.75)] and approach [OR 4.15 95% CI (1.15, 14.98)] were significantly correlated with the need for transfusion when gender, BMI, redon drainage, prosthesis size and duration of surgery were considered together. Conclusion In our experience, total knee replacement performed with either the midvastus or medial parapatellar approach does not result in any advantage with regards to the intra-operative complications, drain blood volume or difference in Hb drop post-operative. However, the midvastus approach presents a longer operation time, with the risk of higher transfusion rates for the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.