↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the quadriceps-sparing and subvastus approaches versus the standard parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the quadriceps-sparing and subvastus approaches versus the standard parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0783-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaochun Peng, Xianlong Zhang, Tao Cheng, Mengqi Cheng, Jiaxing Wang

Abstract

The quadriceps-sparing and subvastus approaches are two of the most commonly used minimally-invasive approaches in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the conclusion among studies still remains controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the subvastus and quadriceps-sparing approaches with the standard parapatellar approach in TKA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the quadriceps-sparing or subvastus approach with the standard parapatellar approach was identified in the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science up to July 2014. Two authors extracted the following data: the basic characteristics of patients, the methodological quality and clinical outcomes from the included RCTs independently. RevMan 5.2.7 software was used for meta-analysis. A total of 19 RCTs (1578 patients) were included for meta-analysis. The results suggested that the quadriceps-sparing approach showed better outcomes in knee society score (KSS) and visual analog score (VAS), but this approach required a longer operative time than the standard parapatellar approach. There were no differences in total complications, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, blood loss and hospital stay between the quadriceps-sparing and standard approaches. The subvastus approach showed better outcomes in VAS, knee range of motion (ROM), straight leg raise and lateral retinacular release than the standard parapatellar approach. There were no differences in KSS, total complication, wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, blood loss and hospital stay between the quadriceps-sparing and standard approaches. The current evidence showed that, when compared with the standard parapatellar approach, the quadriceps-sparing approach was associated with better outcomes in KSS and VAS but required a longer operative time, and the subvastus approach was associated with better outcomes in VAS, ROM, straight leg raise and lateral retinacular release.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,349,419
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,457
of 4,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,488
of 284,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#51
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.