BACKGROUND: The quadriceps-sparing (QS) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was introduced to improve outcomes associated with the medial parapatellar (MP) approach. There is no clear consensus on what advantages, if any, QS provides. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the QS and MP techniques. PubMed, Ovid, and Scopus were assessed for relevant literature. Long-term (primary) outcomes and short-term (secondary) outcomes from 8 RCTs (579 TKAs) were analyzed using OpenMetaAnalyst (2016). RESULTS: The QS approach did not demonstrate clinically significant advantages, but was associated with statistically and clinically significant increases in the primary outcomes of femoral (odds ratio [OR] 4.92, P = .005), tibial (OR 4.34, P = .01), and mechanical axis outliers (OR 4.77, P = .004). Secondary outcome assessments demonstrated increased surgical (mean differences [MD] 19.54, P < .001) and tourniquet time (MD 23.30, P < .001) for QS. Although statistically significant advantages for QS were identified in Knee Society Function scores at 1.5-3 months (MD 2.31, P = .004) and 2 years (MD 1.86, P < .001), these were not clinically significant (fell below the 6-point minimal clinically important difference). CONCLUSION: The QS approach to TKA fails to demonstrate clinically significant advantages, but shows increased malalignment. This increased incidence of implant malalignment may predispose QS patients to early prosthesis failure. Because the QS approach may increases the risk of malalignment while providing no clear benefit compared to MP, we recommend against the routine use of the QS TKA approach.
BACKGROUND: The quadriceps-sparing (QS) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was introduced to improve outcomes associated with the medial parapatellar (MP) approach. There is no clear consensus on what advantages, if any, QS provides. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the QS and MP techniques. PubMed, Ovid, and Scopus were assessed for relevant literature. Long-term (primary) outcomes and short-term (secondary) outcomes from 8 RCTs (579 TKAs) were analyzed using OpenMetaAnalyst (2016). RESULTS: The QS approach did not demonstrate clinically significant advantages, but was associated with statistically and clinically significant increases in the primary outcomes of femoral (odds ratio [OR] 4.92, P = .005), tibial (OR 4.34, P = .01), and mechanical axis outliers (OR 4.77, P = .004). Secondary outcome assessments demonstrated increased surgical (mean differences [MD] 19.54, P < .001) and tourniquet time (MD 23.30, P < .001) for QS. Although statistically significant advantages for QS were identified in Knee Society Function scores at 1.5-3 months (MD 2.31, P = .004) and 2 years (MD 1.86, P < .001), these were not clinically significant (fell below the 6-point minimal clinically important difference). CONCLUSION: The QS approach to TKA fails to demonstrate clinically significant advantages, but shows increased malalignment. This increased incidence of implant malalignment may predispose QS patients to early prosthesis failure. Because the QS approach may increases the risk of malalignment while providing no clear benefit compared to MP, we recommend against the routine use of the QS TKA approach.