Adult Reconstruction

Total Knee Arthroplasty - Medial Parapatellar Approach

Comprehensive surgical technique guide for total knee arthroplasty using the medial parapatellar approach with detailed steps, danger zones, and exam pearls

Core Procedure
advanced
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High Yield Overview

TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY - MEDIAL PARAPATELLAR APPROACH

Medial parapatellar arthrotomy (gold standard approach) | advanced

Critical Danger Structures

Popliteal Artery

Location: 10-15mm posterior to posterior capsule at joint line, closely adherent to bone in popliteal fossa, most at risk during posterior osteophyte removal

Protection: Avoid hyperextension greater than 10° during exposure, use curved osteotomes for posterior osteophyte removal, gentle posterior retraction with Hohmann retractors placed on bone, avoid excessive posterior condylar resection

Common Peroneal Nerve

Location: Wraps around fibular neck 20-30mm distal to fibular head laterally, tethered at fibular tunnel making it vulnerable to stretch injury during valgus correction

Protection: Minimize valgus correction force (limit to 15° correction acutely), graduated lateral releases rather than complete LCL release, warn patient preoperatively of neuropraxia risk (2-5% in severe valgus), consider staged correction if deformity greater than 20°

Saphenous Nerve and Infrapatellar Branch

Location: Main nerve crosses medial incision at joint line level, infrapatellar branch travels anteriorly across surgical field to supply skin over anterior knee and patellar tendon

Protection: Accept numbness as expected outcome (occurs in 30-50% patients), counsel preoperatively, avoid sharp transection (crush or cauterize nerve branches instead to prevent neuroma formation), vertical midline incision reduces branch injury compared to medial approaches

Medial Collateral Ligament

Location: Superficial MCL fibers insert 50mm below joint line on medial tibial metaphysis, deep MCL fibers insert directly on tibial plateau medial edge, both must be preserved or released in controlled fashion

Protection: Sequential graduated release starting with deep MCL (meniscotibial ligament) before superficial MCL, subperiosteal elevation technique preserves fiber continuity, never release superficial MCL insertion distally (causes valgus instability), release proximal fibers from medial epicondyle if needed for severe varus

Patellar Blood Supply (Lateral Genicular Arteries)

Location: Lateral superior and inferior genicular arteries form anastomosis supplying patella from lateral side, vulnerable to devascularization if arthrotomy too lateral or excessive lateral release

Protection: Arthrotomy incision 5mm medial to patella border preserves lateral blood supply, limit lateral retinacular release to minimum needed for eversion (avoid extensive 'pie-crusting'), maintain superior and inferior attachments, consider leaving patella unresurfaced if blood supply compromised

Mnemonic

ROTATIONROTATION - Femoral Component Rotational Landmarks

Mnemonic

BALANCEDBALANCED - Gap Balancing Technique in TKA

Indications

Primary Indications

  • Primary osteoarthritis - Most common indication (85% of TKAs), tricompartmental disease with pain and functional limitation despite conservative management
  • Inflammatory arthritis - Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis with severe joint destruction
  • Post-traumatic arthritis - Following tibial plateau fracture, distal femur fracture, or patellar fracture with malunion/articular incongruity
  • Avascular necrosis - Multifocal or involving multiple compartments (medial and lateral femoral condyles)
  • Failed osteotomy - Progressive arthritis after high tibial osteotomy or distal femoral osteotomy

Secondary Indications

  • Failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - Progression to multicompartmental disease or component failure
  • Septic arthritis sequelae - Severe cartilage destruction after eradicated infection (two-stage approach if active)
  • Hemophilic arthropathy - Chronic hemarthrosis leading to joint destruction
  • Neuropathic arthropathy - Charcot joint with preserved sensation (controversial - higher failure rate)

Contraindications

Absolute Contraindications

  • Active infection - Local or systemic infection, requires two-stage revision if knee infected
  • Extensor mechanism dysfunction - Absent quadriceps function, prior quadriceps or patellar tendon rupture without successful repair
  • Neurovascular compromise - Severe peripheral vascular disease with ischemic leg, absent pulses (requires vascular surgery first)
  • Neuropathic joint with absent sensation - Charcot arthropathy with complete sensory loss (unacceptably high failure rate)

Relative Contraindications

  • Young active patient - Age less than 60 years with high activity demands (consider osteotomy or activity modification first)
  • Severe bone loss - May require metaphyseal augments, stems, or hinged prosthesis rather than standard TKA
  • Morbid obesity - BMI greater than 40 increases infection, wound complications, mechanical failure (optimize weight first)
  • Active smoking - Increases wound complications and infection (cessation 6 weeks preoperatively recommended)
  • Poor soft tissue envelope - Prior incisions, skin grafts, thin skin increases wound complications
  • Reflex sympathetic dystrophy/CRPS - Chronic pain syndrome predicts poor outcomes

Australian Epidemiology

According to AOANJRR 2023 Annual Report:

  • 71,245 primary TKAs performed in Australia annually
  • 93% survivorship at 15 years for cemented cruciate-retaining TKA
  • Cumulative revision rate 8.0% at 15 years (lower than hip - 8.7%)
  • Primary osteoarthritis accounts for 97% of primary TKAs
  • Mean age 69 years (range 40-90 years, increasing numbers younger than 60)

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"You are performing a primary TKA via medial parapatellar approach. After completing the bone cuts and trialling the components, you notice the patella tracks laterally during the last 30° of extension. What is the most likely cause and how would you address this intraoperatively?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
The most likely cause of lateral patellar maltracking in terminal extension is femoral component internal rotation malposition. I would systematically assess and address this as follows: First, I would verify femoral component rotation by examining the trial component position relative to the three rotational landmarks: (1) Whiteside's line (AP axis) - the component should be parallel, (2) transepicondylar axis - component should align, (3) posterior condylar axis - component should be 3° externally rotated. If the component is internally rotated, I must revise the femoral cuts. Second, I would remove the trial femoral component and re-mark all three landmarks. Third, I would make new femoral cuts at correct rotation (3° external to posterior condyles, confirming parallel to Whiteside's line). Fourth, after making corrected cuts, I would re-trial components and reassess patellar tracking through full range of motion. The patella should now track centrally without subluxation. If tracking is improved but mild lateral tracking persists, I would consider limited lateral retinacular release (2-3cm from lateral patellar edge). However, femoral component malrotation MUST be corrected primarily - lateral release alone will not solve internal rotation malposition and leads to chronic pain and eventual revision. Alternative causes to consider if rotation is correct: patellar button malposition (off-center, tilted), excessive patellar thickness (over-stuffing), inadequate lateral release if patella was tight during eversion. However, maltracking specifically in terminal extension is pathognomonic for femoral component internal rotation.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"You have completed a primary TKA and achieved good intraoperative range of motion (0-130° flexion) with stable components. However, on postoperative day 3, the patient can only flex to 70° and has significant pain. What are your differential diagnoses and management approach?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient has developed early postoperative stiffness with significant loss of range of motion compared to intraoperative assessment. My differential diagnosis in order of likelihood is: (1) Inadequate pain control limiting patient participation in physiotherapy, (2) Component malpositioning causing impingement (most commonly femoral component too large, over-stuffed patellofemoral joint, or excessive tibial slope), (3) Hematoma causing mechanical block to motion, (4) Quadriceps inhibition from pain or femoral nerve block residual effect, (5) Patient factors (anxiety, fear of pain, lack of motivation), (6) Early infection causing pain and effusion. My management approach would be systematic: First, assess pain control - if inadequate, optimize multimodal analgesia (paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids, consider femoral nerve catheter). Second, perform clinical examination assessing for: wound complications (infection), joint effusion (hematoma or hemarthrosis), extensor lag (quadriceps function), and passive vs active ROM (distinguishing mechanical block from muscle inhibition). Third, obtain AP and lateral radiographs checking component position, patellar height, and joint space. Fourth, check inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP) - if elevated consider infection or hematoma. If pain controlled and no mechanical cause identified, intensive supervised physiotherapy with therapist-assisted ROM exercises (gentle manipulation, continuous passive motion). If large hematoma identified on exam or ultrasound causing mechanical block, consider aspiration (send for culture). If no improvement with 48 hours of optimized pain control and intensive physiotherapy, return to operating room for examination under anesthesia (EUA) - assess ROM, if improves under anesthesia confirming pain as limiting factor continue conservative management, if ROM still limited suggesting mechanical cause, perform arthroscopy identifying and treating cause (remove hematoma, débride adhesions, assess component position). If component malpositioning identified, revision may be required.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A 58-year-old patient with severe valgus deformity (20° valgus alignment) requires TKA. What are the specific challenges and risks of this case compared to varus deformity, and how would you counsel the patient preoperatively? Describe your surgical strategy for soft tissue balancing."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Severe valgus deformity (greater than 15°) presents significantly greater technical challenges and risks compared to varus deformity in TKA, and requires specific preoperative counseling and surgical planning. The key challenges are: (1) Lateral soft tissue contractures including ITB, lateral capsule, popliteus, LCL, and lateral head of gastrocnemius requiring extensive release for gap balancing, (2) Lateral bone deficiency requiring augmentation or bone grafting, (3) Common peroneal nerve at high risk of traction injury during acute correction (2-5% palsy risk with deformity greater than 15° valgus), (4) Patella alta and extensor mechanism lateralization making patellar tracking difficult. My preoperative counseling would specifically address: Inform patient of higher complication rate compared to neutral alignment, specifically 2-5% risk of common peroneal nerve palsy causing foot drop (may be permanent, requiring AFO), possibility of staged correction if deformity greater than 20° (initial correction to 10° valgus, staged second TKA 3-6 months later for final correction), potential need for constrained implants (varus-valgus constrained or hinged) if instability persists despite soft tissue balancing, longer operative time and potentially greater blood loss, longer rehabilitation due to extensive soft tissue releases. My surgical strategy would be: First, complete exposure and peripheral osteophyte removal - release lateral structures extraarticularly before bone cuts (ITB, lateral capsule). Second, perform standard bone cuts (tibial cut perpendicular to mechanical axis, femoral cut at appropriate valgus - may need 8-9° due to native anatomy). Third, assess extension gap - valgus deformity will show lateral tightness and medial laxity. Fourth, perform sequential lateral release in following order: (a) Release lateral capsule and popliteus from proximal tibia, (b) Release LCL from lateral femoral epicondyle, (c) Release lateral head of gastrocnemius, (d) Consider ITB lengthening (Z-plasty) or release. Fifth, reassess extension gap after each release step - goal is symmetric rectangular gap. Sixth, assess flexion gap and balance as standard. Seventh, if instability persists despite maximum releases, convert to constrained implant (varus-valgus constrained or hinged). Eighth, minimize acute correction force on nerve - consider bent-knee position during closure to relax peroneal nerve.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Medial Parapatellar Approach - Exam Summary

High-Yield Exam Summary

References

  1. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2023 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA, 2023. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2023

  2. Insall JN, Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner LA. Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(192):13-22. PMID: 3967412. [Classic description of measured resection technique and component alignment principles]

  3. Whiteside LA, Arima J. The anteroposterior axis for femoral rotational alignment in valgus total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;(321):168-172. PMID: 7497664. [Original description of Whiteside's line as rotational landmark]

  4. Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS. Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(286):40-47. PMID: 8425366. [Transepicondylar axis validation study]

  5. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Kim RH, Sharma A. Gap balancing versus measured resection technique for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):102-107. PMID: 19789934. [Comparison of two major surgical techniques, no significant difference in outcomes]

  6. Alesi D, Meek RMD, Volpin A, Kendrick BJL, Haddad FS. Peri-operative complications of total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):107-115. PMID: 34192915. [Comprehensive review of TKA complications, prevention, and management]

  7. Therapeutic Guidelines Limited. eTG complete [digital]. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited; 2024. Available at: https://tgldcdp.tg.org.au/ [Australian antibiotic guidelines for surgical prophylaxis and VTE prophylaxis]

  8. Fillingham YA, Ramkumar DB, Jevsevar DS, et al. The Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(10):3090-3098.e1. PMID: 29934104. [Meta-analysis confirming tranexamic acid efficacy and safety]

  9. Licini DJ, Meneghini RM. Modern cement technique and the survivorship of total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45(1):71-80. PMID: 24267208. [Review of cement technique evolution and impact on aseptic loosening reduction]

  10. Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Swan JD, Stoney JD, Choong PF. Joint line position correlates with function after primary total knee replacement: a randomised controlled trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93-B(9):1223-1231. PMID: 21911533. [Study demonstrating importance of joint line restoration and component positioning for functional outcomes]