Lateral Subvastus Lateralis versus Medial Parapatellar Approach for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Patient Outcomes and Kinematics Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The conventional approach for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a medial parapatellar approach (MPA). We aimed to study patient outcomes and kinematics with a quadriceps sparing lateral subvastus lateralis approach (SLA). Patients with neutral/varus alignment undergoing primary TKA were consented to undergo the SLA. At 1-year postoperative, patients underwent radiostereometric analysis. Patients were administered the Short Form 12 (SF-12), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Society Score (KSS). Kinematics and outcome data were compared to a group undergoing TKA via conventional MPA. Fourteen patients underwent TKA via SLA with a mean age 71.5 ± 8.0 and mean body mass index (BMI) 31.0 ± 4.5. The MPA group had 13 patients with mean age 63.4 ± 5.5 (p = 0.006) and mean BMI 31.2 ± 4.6 (p = 0.95). The SLA resulted in a significantly more posterior medial contact point at 0 (p = 0.011), 20 (p = 0.020), and 40 (p = 0.039) degrees of flexion. There was no significant difference in medial contact point from 60 to 120 degrees, lateral contact point at any degree of flexion, or axial rotation. There was no difference in improvement in postoperative WOMAC, SF-12, KSS function, and total KSS knee scores between groups. The MPA group had a significantly greater improvement in KSS knee scores at 3 months (p < 0.001), 1 year (p = 0.003), and 2 years (p = 0.017). The SLA resulted in increased medial femoral rollback early in flexion. Although both approaches resulted in improved postoperative outcomes, the MPA group showed significantly greater improvements in KSS knee scores at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Further studies are required to identify any benefits that the SLA may offer. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level II
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".