Affect of surgical approaches on functional results of total hip arthroplasty in early postoperative period

Cover Page


Cite item

Abstract

Minimally invasive approaches implies a less soft tissue damage and, therefore, more rapid recovery of the patient in the early postoperative period. The present study is a comparison of minimally invasive and standard approaches using biomechanical analysis of standing and walking patients before and after total hip arthroplasty, as well as an analysis of clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period. Fifty patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty using a minimally invasive and conventional techniques were divided into three groups. The first group consisted of patients operated on using the MIS AL (modified minimally invasive approach Watson-Jones) (n = 17), the second - MDM (minimally invasive approach to the modified Mueller) (n = 16) and in the third - with the use of transgluteal conventional approach by Harding (n = 17). The estimation of biomechanical parameters in static and dynamic patients before surgery and at 8-10 days after surgery. Also assessed clinical outcome postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Harris scale on day 10, 6 and 12 weeks and 1 year. When comparing the three groups of patients stabilometry best results were observed in groups of minimally invasive approaches MIS AL and MDM. When comparing the three groups significantly better (a moderate increase in the duration of the step, rolling the contralateral limb and a slight increase in the duration of the step the operated limb by increasing the duration of the roll-over) were identified in the minimally invasive group MIS AL and MDM. In assessing the scale of Harris in the early postoperative period, higher rates were observed in groups of minimally invasive approaches. A year after the operation functional results become similar in all groups.

About the authors

D. V. Andreyev

Vreden Russian Research Institute for Traumatology and Orthopedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: dandreef@gmail.com
Russian Federation

I. V. Naumenko

Vreden Russian Research Institute for Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: ivnaumenko@rniito.ru
Russian Federation

M. Y. Goncharov

Vreden Russian Research Institute for Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: goncharov71@list.ru
Russian Federation

P. V. Drozdova

Vreden Russian Research Institute for Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: pvdrozdova@rniito.ru
Russian Federation

P. M. Preobrazhenskiy

Vreden Russian Research Institute for Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: pmpreobrazhenskiy@rniito.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Ауди Камел. Научное обоснование применения биомеханических методов в комплексной оценке и мониторинге состояния пациентов после эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава [автореф. дис. ... канд. мед. наук]. — СПб., 2012. — 23 с
  2. Ежов И.Ю., Рукина Н.Н., Трифонов А.М. Биомеханические методы оценки функционального состояния пациентов при эндопротезировании тазобедренных суставов. Медицинский альманах. 2010; 2(11):183-186
  3. Bennett D., Ogonda L., Elliott D., Humphreys L, Beverland D.E. Comparison of gait kinematics in patients receiving minimally invasive and traditional hip replacement surgery: a prospective blinded study. Gait Posture. 2006;23:374-82.
  4. Bertin K.C., Röttinger H. Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004;429:248-255.
  5. Crowe J.F., Mani V.J., Ranawat C.S. Total hip replacement in congeni — tal dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J. Bone Joint Surg.1979;61-A:15-23.
  6. DiGioia A.M. 3rd., Plakseychuk A.Y., Levison T.J., Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J. Arthroplasty. 2003;18:123-128.
  7. Dorr L.D., Maheshwari A.V., Long W.T., Wan Z., Sirianni L.E. Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, blinded study. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89-A:1153-1160.
  8. Goldstein W.M., Branson J.J., Berland K.A., Gordon A.C. Minimal-incision total hip arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85-A, Suppl. 4:33-38.
  9. Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip J. Bone Joint Surg. 1982;64-В:17-19.
  10. Harris W.H. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J. Bone Joint Surg. 1969;51-A(4):737 — 755.
  11. Huskisson E.C. Measurement of pain. Lancet.1974;2:1127-1131.
  12. Moskal T., Capps G. Is limited incision better than standard total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis. Clin. Orthop. 2013;471(4):1283-1294.
  13. Mouilhade F., Matsoukis J., Oger P., Mandereau C., Brzakala V., Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary totalhipreplacement: aprospectivecomparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2011;97(1):14 — 21.
  14. Miller M.D., Ferris D.G. Measurement of subjective phenomena in primary care research: the visual analogue scale. Fam. Pract. Res. J. 1993;13:15-24.
  15. Pospischill M., Kranzl A., Mag, Attwenger B., Knahr K. Minimally invasive compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty a comparative gait analysis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2010;92-A:328-337.
  16. Sherry E., Egan M., Warnke P.H., Henderson A., Eslick G.D. Minimal invasive surgery for hip replacement: a new technique using the NILNAV hip system. ANZ J. Surg. 2003;73:157-161.
  17. Wenz J.F., Gurkan I., Jibodh S.R. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a comparative assessment of perioperative outcomes. Orthopedics. 2002;25:1031-1043.
  18. Woolson S.T., Mow C.S., Syquia J.F., Lannin J.V., Schurman D.J. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86-A:1353-1358.

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies