Literature DB >> 23073706

Outcomes of minimally invasive anterolateral THA are not superior to those of minimally invasive direct lateral and posterolateral THA.

Nelson V Greidanus1, Samir Chihab, Donald S Garbuz, Bassam A Masri, Michael Tanzer, Allan E Gross, Clive P Duncan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable interest in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) THA in recent years. The MIS anterolateral approach, or the MIS Watson-Jones approach, is a novel intermuscular abductor-sparing technique. Early reports from case series suggest the potential for superior function and reduced complications; however, the available information from clinical reports is inadequate to suggest surgeons should change from their accepted standard approach. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined the potential superiority of this anterolateral approach, as judged by quality-of-life (QoL) measures, radiographic parameters, and complications, compared to limited-incision MIS direct lateral and MIS posterolateral approaches.
METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial involving five surgeons at three centers, recruiting 156 patients undergoing primary THA to receive either the MIS anterolateral or the surgeon's preferred approach (direct lateral or posterolateral). For the 135 patients we report, we collected patient-reported WOMAC, SF-36, Paper Adaptive Test in 5 Domains of Quality of Life in Arthritis Questionnaire [PAT5D], and patient satisfaction scores. We recorded complications and evaluated radiographs for prosthetic component position, subsidence, and fracture. Minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 30 months; range, 24-42 months).
RESULTS: QoL and patient-reported satisfaction were similar between groups. Radiographic evaluation demonstrated no differences in acetabular component positioning; however, mean stem subsidence was 4.6 mm for the MIS anterolateral group and 4.1 mm for the alternate group, with differences observed among the three centers for stem subsidence and fracture. One center had increased rate of fracture requiring treatment and need for revision in the MIS anterolateral group.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no superiority of the MIS anterolateral approach but observed intersite differences in painful stem subsidence and fracture. We have returned to the standard surgical approaches in use before the trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23073706      PMCID: PMC3549154          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2603-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  19 in total

Review 1.  The limited incision, anterolateral, intermuscular technique for total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew Toms; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2006

2.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year.

Authors:  Robin Martin; Patrick E Clayson; Serge Troussel; Brian P Fraser; Pierre-Louis Docquier
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Little clinical advantage of modified Watson-Jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yutaka Inaba; Naomi Kobayashi; Yohei Yukizawa; Takashi Ishida; Naoyuki Iwamoto; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  [The MIS anterolateral approach for THA].

Authors:  H Röttinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 6.  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

7.  Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, blinded study.

Authors:  Lawrence D Dorr; Aditya V Maheshwari; William T Long; Zhinian Wan; Leigh Ellen Sirianni
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Minimally invasive versus classic procedures in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jon H M Goosen; Boudewijn J Kollen; René M Castelein; Bart M Kuipers; Cees C Verheyen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  N Mahomed; Rajiv Gandhi; Lawrence Daltroy; J N Katz
Journal:  Arthritis       Date:  2011-01-10

10.  Assessment of health-related quality of life in arthritis: conceptualization and development of five item banks using item response theory.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Eric C Sayre; Aileen M Davis; Elizabeth M Badley; Michal Abrahamowicz; Lesley Sherlock; J Ivan Williams; Aslam H Anis; John M Esdaile
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-06-02       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  8 in total

1.  The minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the traditional anterolateral approach (Watson-Jones) for hip hemiarthroplasty after a femoral neck fracture: an analysis of clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Louis de Jong; Taco M A L Klem; Tjallingius M Kuijper; Gert R Roukema
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Improvement of activities of daily living after total hip arthroplasty using a computed tomography-based navigation system.

Authors:  Yuki Maeda; Nobuo Nakamura; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 1.731

3.  Proceeding from direct lateral to anterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: A closer look on radiological and clinical aspects.

Authors:  Nils Wirries; Marco Ezechieli; Thilo Floerkemeier; Henning Windhagen; Michael Skutek
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-01-28

4.  Worse patient-reported outcome after lateral approach than after anterior and posterolateral approach in primary hip arthroplasty. A cross-sectional questionnaire study of 1,476 patients 1-3 years after surgery.

Authors:  Einar Amlie; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes; Valborg Baste; Lars Nordsletten; Oystein Hovik; Sigbjorn Dimmen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 5.  Do outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of joint replacement surgery fulfil the OMERACT 2.0 Filter? A review of the 2008 and 2013 literature.

Authors:  Peter D H Wall; Bethan L Richards; Andrew Sprowson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-30

6.  A 10-Year Follow-Up of Two-Incision and Modified Watson-Jones Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head.

Authors:  Shih-Jie Lin; Tsan-Wen Huang; Po-Chun Lin; Feng-Chih Kuo; Kuo-Ti Peng; Kuo-Chin Huang; Mel S Lee
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-03-12       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  The direct superior approach versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: study protocol for a prospective double-blinded randomised control trial.

Authors:  Babar Kayani; Sujith Konan; Jenni Tahmassebi; Atif Ayuob; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Outcomes of the Supine Anterior-based Muscle-sparing Approach for Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tommy Pan; Anuj Mehta; Mark W Mason
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2022-02-02
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.