Introduction

Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Orthopaedic surgeons vary in their surgical approaches to total knee arthroplasty. The aim of this investigation was to compare outcomes after two different surgical approaches. The study was a prospective single-centre longitudinal randomized controlled trial. A sub-vastus approach was compared with a medial para-patellar approach. Participating surgeons elected to randomize their patients to one of the two types of approach. Outcomes included the Knee Society (KS) Clinical Rating System, WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, SF-36, and EuroQol (measured at 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively compared to baseline) complications, surgeon rated ease of exposure, and proportion of patients who had a lateral release.

Two hundred and thirty one patients were randomized to the two approaches. One hundred and sixteen patients were randomized to the sub-vastus approach. At one week compared to baseline, range of motion, KS global, KS knee, and KS pain scores were significantly better in the sub-vastus group. At six weeks, the medial para-patellar group tended to have better outcomes, but not statistically significantly. At fifty-two weeks compared to baseline, the WOMAC global and pain scores, the SF36 physical function and role-physical scores, and the EuroQol utility and pain score were significantly better in the sub-vastus group. Surgeons reported the ease of exposure in the sub-vastus group was significantly worse on average.

This trial is the largest of its kind to date, and the first, so far as we are aware, to compare clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches at one year post-operatively. The sub-vastus approach to total knee arthroplasty was more effective than a medial para-patellar approach at both one week and fifty-two weeks post-operatively in patients whose surgeons considered either approach would be suitable. However, surgeons reported worse ease of exposure in the sub-vastus group.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed–4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ2=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.

Introduction: Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Methods: Two-hundred and thirty-one patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty during 2001–2003 were recruited into the study. Patients were randomised into subvastus (116) or medial parapatellar (115) approaches to knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome measures were the American Knee Society and WOMAC Scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient based measures of EuroQol and SF-36. All outcomes were measured pre-operatively, 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively. We also looked at a pain diary, analgesia diary, ease of surgical exposure, and complications.

Results: Pain as measured by WOMAC was significantly less in the subvastus group but only at 52 weeks. The Knee Society Score showed some early benefit at one week to the subvastus group. There was no difference between the two groups in relation to the knee function score, EuroQol, SF-36, pain diary, analgesia usage and length of hospital stay.

Conclusion: There is some benefit to patients receiving sub-vastus arthrotomy relative to medial para-patellar. Although the results show some statistical significance in using the sub-vastus approach the clinical importance of these findings and the costs of the various procedures involved remain to be ascertained.

Introduction: Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Methods: Two-hundred and thirty-one patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty during 2001–2003 were recruited into the study. Patients were randomised into subvastus (116) or medial parapatellar (115) approaches to knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome measures were the American Knee Society and WOMAC Scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient based measures of EuroQol and SF-36. All outcomes were measured pre-operatively, 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively. We also looked at a pain diary, analgesia diary, ease of surgical exposure, and complications.

Results: Pain as measured by WOMAC was significantly less in the subvastus group but only at 52 weeks. The Knee Society Score showed some early benefit at one week to the subvastus group. There was no difference between the two groups in relation to the knee function score, EuroQol, SF-36, pain diary, analgesia usage and length of hospital stay

Conclusion: There is some benefit to patients receiving sub-vastus arthrotomy relative to medial para-patellar. Although the results show some statistical significance in using the sub-vastus approach the clinical importance of these findings and the costs of the various procedures involved remain to be ascertained.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed −4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ²=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.