Hypesthesia after Anterolateral versus Midline Skin Incision in TKA: A Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterior midline skin incision in a TKA provides excellent surgical exposure. However, it usually requires sectioning the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve which may be associated with lateral cutaneous hypesthesia and neuroma formation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether an anterolateral skin incision to the knee would decrease the area of skin hypesthesia and associated postoperative discomfort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomized 69 knees to receive a TKA through either a midline or an anterolateral skin incision. We assessed skin sensitivity by application of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament at 13 reference points at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The area of hypesthesia was measured using Mesurim Pro 9(®) software. Patient knee ROM, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and WOMAC clinical score also were assessed. RESULTS: The area of hypesthesia was less after an anterolateral compared with a midline incision up to 1 year after surgery: the areas of hypesthesia were, respectively, 32 cm(2) versus 76 cm(2) at 6 weeks, 14 cm(2) versus 29 cm(2) at 6 months, and 7 cm(2) versus 19 cm(2) at 1 year. Clinical scores and knee ROM were similar in both groups at each followup. At 1 year, in the entire group we observed a correlation between a smaller area of paresthesia and better WOMAC and KOOS scores and greater knee flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the midline skin incision, the anterolateral incision is associated with fewer sensory disturbances and appears to be a reasonable alternative in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".