Literature DB >> 16119401

Comparison of early postoperative functional levels following total hip replacement using minimally invasive versus standard incisions. A prospective randomized blinded trial.

Marie Lawlor1, Patricia Humphreys, Esther Morrow, Luke Ogonda, Damien Bennett, David Elliott, David Beverland.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of single-incision minimally invasive total hip replacement (< or = 10 cm) to standard-incision (16 cm) total hip replacement in the early postoperative period with respect to functional and mobilizing ability (transfers, mobilizing, walking and stair assessment).
SETTING: Orthopaedic wards of a regional orthopaedic centre.
SUBJECTS: Two hundred and nineteen total hip replacement patients were tested between December 2003 and June 2004.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either total hip replacement through a minimally invasive (< or = 10 cm) or standard incision (16 cm). A single surgeon performed all procedures using the same type of component fixation. Postoperative physiotherapy assessment and treatment was standardized. Analgesia was also standardized. All patients, physiotherapy staff and assessors were blinded to the incision used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were tested two days post operatively and were assessed for the following activities: transfer from supine to sit, transfer from sitting to standing, mobilizing, ascending and descending stairs and weight-bearing.
RESULTS: The shorter incision offered no significant improvement in patient ability in relation to transfer from lying to sitting, transfer from sitting to standing, mobilizing or weight-bearing. Ascending/descending stairs gave a total time for the minimal incision of 38.7 s against 40.8 s for a standard incision. There was no difference in walking velocity between the standard incision and minimal incision groups two days post operatively (minimal incision = 0.26 m/s versus standard incision = 0.26 m/s) or six weeks post operatively (minimal incision = 0.90 m/s versus standard incision = 0.93 m/s). There was no difference between groups with respect to walking aids at six-week review. The mean length of stay for the minimally invasive approach was 3.65 days (SD 2.04) against 3.68 days (SD 2.45) for the standard approach. This was not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Total hip replacement performed through a minimally invasive incision of < or = 10 cm compared with a standard incision of 16 cm offers no significant benefit in terms of the rate or ability of patients to mobilize and perform functional tasks necessary for safe discharge.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16119401     DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr890oa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Rehabil        ISSN: 0269-2155            Impact factor:   3.477


  18 in total

Review 1.  What is the role of minimally invasive surgery in a fast track hip and knee replacement pathway?

Authors:  J M Lloyd; T Wainwright; R G Middleton
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes.

Authors:  Toby O Smith; Vicky Blake; Caroline B Hing
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Factors influencing early rehabilitation after THA: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vivek Sharma; Patrick M Morgan; Edward Y Cheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  [Gait analysis after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  K Sander; F Layher; C Anders; A Roth; J Babisch; H-C Scholle; R W Kinne
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve during minimally invasive hip surgery: a cadaver study.

Authors:  Simon S Jameson; Daniel W J Howcroft; Andrew W McCaskie; Craig H Gerrand
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach.

Authors:  Sascha Goebel; Andre F Steinert; Judith Schillinger; Jochen Eulert; Jens Broscheit; Maximilian Rudert; Ulrich Nöth
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Comparison of minimally invasive approach versus conventional anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  T Repantis; T Bouras; P Korovessis
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-02-21

Review 8.  [The standard implantation of a total hip prosthesis via two incisions (the Yale Technique)].

Authors:  Robert Kipping
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 9.  Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Inge H F Reininga; Wiebren Zijlstra; Robert Wagenmakers; Alexander L Boerboom; Bregtje P Huijbers; Johan W Groothoff; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Martin Stevens
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Pilates training for use in rehabilitation after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Brett Levine; Beth Kaplanek; William L Jaffe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.