Clinical Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Approaches for Total Knee Arthroplas-ty:a Meta-Analysis

Ji-chao LIU,Tie-hua ZHANG,Yu-long LI
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2084.2016.15.040
2016-01-01
Abstract:Objective To systematically evaluate theclinical effects differences between minimally inva-sive and conventional approaches for total knee arthroplasty ( TKA ) .Methods A computer-based online search of VIP, CNKI, Wangfang Data, PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library and EMbase were per-formed for randomized controlled trials(RCT) regarding the efficacy of the minimally invasive versus conven-tional approaches for TKA,and the references of those study were also searched by hand too.Retrieval time was from Jan.1950 to Jul.2014.Two reviewers independently screened the literatures,extracted the data,and evaluated the methodological quality.The extracted data were analyzed by RevMan 5.1.Results Altogether 15 RCT,1189 cases without bias were enrolled,including the minimally invasive surgery(MIs) group(584 knees)and conventional group(605 knees).The findings of this study suggest that intraoperative blood loss was less in the MIS group[WMD=-49.85,95%CI ( -83.39,-16.32)],and operation time was longer in the MIS group[WMD=12,95%CI (6.99,17.01)],there were no statistically significant differences in all other clinical outcomes[KSS score,postoperative flexion mobility,postoperative complication rate (joint stiffness,deep vein thrombosis, superficial infection and deep infection ) ] between the two groups ( P >0.05).Conclusion Based on the current evidence,no obvious advantage is demonstrated for minimally invasive approaches,in comparison with the conventional approaches for TKA .A prudent choice is suggested and more high-quality,large sample RCT studies are needed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?