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.

Aim: To investigate and compare the effects of two types of LCS total knee arthroplasty on joint proprioception and range of motion.

Methods: 47 patients were randomised to receive either a LCS AP glide or Rotating platform prosthesis. Clinical scores (Oxford knee score, American knee society score, EuroQol), range of motion and proprioception were assessed prior to and at 3,6, and 12 months after the operation. Proprioception was assessed in terms of absolute error angle (mean difference between the target angle and the response angle). Knee angles were measured in degrees using an electromagnetic tracking device, Polhemus 3Space Fastrak that detected positions of sensors placed on the test limb. Student’s t-test was used to compare the mean of two groups (with a level of significance of p < 0.05).

Results: Both groups were comparable in terms of pre-operative range of motion, oxford knee score, American knee society score, EuroQol score and proprioception. There was statistically significant improvement in the Oxford knee score, AKSS and EuroQol score in both groups (p< 0.001), but there was no difference between the groups with respect to these parameters. There was improvement in the proprioception (reduction in absolute error angle) in both groups though this was not significant statistically (p> 0.05).

Conclusions: We did not find significant difference between AP glide and RP LCS knee arthroplasty in terms of improvement in proprioception and range of motion.

Aim: To investigate and compare the effects of two types of LCS total knee arthroplasty AP glide {(posterior cruciate is retained and the mobile bearing allows anteroposterior and well as rotational movement) and RP (in which posterior cruciate is sacrificed and the mobile bearing allows only rotational movement)} on joint proprioception and range of motion.

Methods: 30 patients scheduled to undergo mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty were randomised to receive either a LCS AP glide or Rotating platform prosthesis. Clinical scores (Oxford knee score, American knee society score (AKSS), EuroQol), range of motion and proprioception were assessed prior to and at three and six months after the operation. Proprioception was assessed in terms of absolute error angle (mean difference between the target angle and the response angle). Student’s t-test was used to compare the mean of two groups (with a level of significance of p < 0.05).

Results: Both groups were comparable in terms of pre-operative range of motion, oxford knee score, American knee society score, EuroQol score and proprioception. At 6 months there was significant improvement in the Oxford knee score, AKSS and EuroQol score in both groups (p< 0.001), but no difference was noted between the two groups with respect to these parameters. There was improvement in the proprioception (reduction in absolute error angle) in both groups though this was not significant statistically (p> 0.05). The mean active non-weight-bearing range of motion improved in both groups {AP glide group, (p< 0.05) and RP group, (p> 0.05)}

Conclusions: We did not find significant difference between AP glide and RP LCS knee arthroplasty in terms of improvement in proprioception and range of motion.