Minimally invasive total knee replacement (MIS-TKR)
has been reported to have better early recovery than conventional
TKR. Quadriceps-sparing (QS) TKR is the least invasive MIS procedure,
but it is technically demanding with higher reported rates of complications
and outliers. This study was designed to compare the early clinical
and radiological outcomes of TKR performed by an experienced surgeon
using the QS approach with or without navigational assistance (NA),
or using a mini-medial parapatellar (MP) approach. In all, 100 patients
completed a minimum two-year follow-up: 30 in the NA-QS group, 35
in the QS group, and 35 in the MP group. There were no significant
differences in clinical outcome in terms of ability to perform a
straight-leg raise at 24 hours (p = 0.700), knee score (p = 0.952),
functional score (p = 0.229) and range of movement (p = 0.732) among
the groups. The number of outliers for all three radiological parameters
of mechanical axis, frontal femoral component alignment and frontal
tibial component alignment was significantly lower in the NA-QS
group than in the QS group (p = 0.008), but no outlier was found
in the MP group. In conclusion, even after the surgeon completed a substantial
number of cases before the commencement of this study, the supplementary
intra-operative use of computer-assisted navigation with QS-TKR
still gave inferior radiological results and longer operating time,
with a similar outcome at two years when compared with a MP approach. Cite this article:
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are
increasingly being used to assess functional outcome and patient satisfaction.
They provide a framework for comparisons between surgical units,
and individual surgeons for benchmarking and financial remuneration.
Better performance may bring the reward of more customers as patients and
commissioners seek out high performers for their elective procedures.
Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data linked to PROMs we identified
22 691 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for osteoarthritis
in England and Wales between August 2008 and February 2011, and
identified the surgical factors that influenced the improvements
in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) assessment
using multiple regression analysis. After correction for patient
factors the only surgical factors that influenced PROMs were implant
brand and hospital type (both p <
0.001). However, the effects
of surgical factors upon the PROMs were modest compared with patient
factors. For both the OKS and the EQ-5D the most important factors
influencing the improvement in PROMs were the corresponding pre-operative
score and the patient’s general health status. Despite having only
a small effect on PROMs, this study has shown that both implant
brand and hospital type do influence reported subjective functional
scores following TKR. In the current climate of financial austerity,
proposed performance-based remuneration and wider patient choice,
it would seem unwise to ignore these effects and the influence of
a range of additional patient factors.
