MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Subvastus Lateralis Approach to Total Knee Arthroplasty – A Cadaveric Evaluation

2018· article· en· W3174336714 on OpenAlexaff
Josée A. Legault, Tyler S. Beveridge, Marjorie I. Johnson, Brent A. Lanting

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmMedicineSoft tissuePatellaDissection (medical)Total knee arthroplastySurgeryKnee JointTendonAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been a reliable method for effectively treating advanced knee arthropathy. A medial parapatellar approach (MPA) is commonly used because of its large exposure and versatility; however, iatrogenic soft tissue damage remains a concern. In response, several alternative approaches have emerged that aim to reduce soft tissue damage, though their clinical usefulness is often limited by poor surgical exposure of the internal compartments of the knee. Based on the relevant surgical anatomy of the knee, we propose the subvastus lateralis approach (SLA) as a novel alternative. The aim of the present study is to explore the anatomical and surgical advantages of using the SLA compared to the MPA for TKA. Methods To compare surgical effectiveness, a TKA was conducted on 22 paired fresh‐frozen cadaveric limbs (five females/six males) randomly assigned to either the SLA or MPA. All procedures were conducted by the same experienced surgeon. Primary parameters measured were the perimeter of surgical exposure as well as the length of skin incision. Additionally, subjective observations of the medial and lateral patellar contact were noted to assess patellar tracking. Afterwards, gross dissection of the limb was conducted to analyze any disruptions in the following soft tissues: components of the extensor mechanism, iliotibial band, tendon of the popliteus, and medial/lateral collateral ligaments. Results The SLA provided adequate exposure to the internal compartments of the knee that was not statistically different to the mean exposure perimeter achieved using the MPA (p>0.05). Furthermore, the exposure provided by the SLA was achieved using a skin incision that was not statistically different compared to the MPA (p>0.05). In addition, patellar tracking showed superior results, where proper tracking was obtained in 100% of the SLA cases compared to 50% of those having undergone the MPA. Preliminary observations show that the SLA is successful in sparing the quadriceps tendon and the majority of the vastus lateralis. Conversely, in a subset of cases, the patellar ligament sustained a 0.1–0.7 mm transverse disruption of its distal fibers during the cutting of the tibial plateau. Conclusion The SLA to TKA was able to be successfully completed in 100% of the specimens, with no major modifications to the technique. This approach proved to be reliable in knees with no notable deformities (valgus or varus) and provided an equal exposure to the internal compartments of the knee when compared to the standard MPA. It is important to note that this exposure was achieved using a skin incision of similar length to the MPA. The SLA also shows promising results regarding proper patellar tracking, though future investigation should be conducted to objectively assert these benefits. Finally, preliminary results show a reduction in the disruption of the quadriceps tendon and muscles when using the SLA, however, damage to the patellar ligament may occur. Future studies should evaluate the versatility of the SLA through an examination of specimens with a known degree of knee deformity. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→