Walter van der Weegen1, Anke Kornuijt2, Dirk Das3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Anna Hospital, Geldrop, The Netherlands kog@st-anna.nl. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, St. Anna Hospital, Geldrop, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Anna Hospital, Geldrop, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of lifestyle restrictions and precautions to prevent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2015, with additional hand searching of systematic reviews and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from their start date through to February 2015. Randomized controlled trials and comparative case series in English, Dutch or German language were included. Only primary total hip arthroplasty procedures managed with different postoperative restrictions and precautions protocols were included. Primary outcome was the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate, secondary outcomes were patient functioning, return to activities of daily living and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 119 eligible articles were identified, six were included: three randomized controlled trials, one retrospective matched cohort study, one retrospective and one prospective cohort study, describing 1122 procedures (restrictions group: n = 528; no restrictions group: n = 594). Both the standard posterior and anterolateral surgical approaches were included. There were eight dislocations (1.5%) in the restricted group, vs. six dislocations (1.0%) in the unrestricted group. Patients in the unrestricted group resumed activities significantly faster and were more satisfied with their pace of recovery. CONCLUSION: A more liberal lifestyle restrictions and precautions protocol will not lead to worse dislocation rates after total hip arthroplasty, but will lead to earlier and better resumption of activities and higher patient satisfaction. These results appear to hold up for various surgical approaches.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of lifestyle restrictions and precautions to prevent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2015, with additional hand searching of systematic reviews and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from their start date through to February 2015. Randomized controlled trials and comparative case series in English, Dutch or German language were included. Only primary total hip arthroplasty procedures managed with different postoperative restrictions and precautions protocols were included. Primary outcome was the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate, secondary outcomes were patient functioning, return to activities of daily living and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 119 eligible articles were identified, six were included: three randomized controlled trials, one retrospective matched cohort study, one retrospective and one prospective cohort study, describing 1122 procedures (restrictions group: n = 528; no restrictions group: n = 594). Both the standard posterior and anterolateral surgical approaches were included. There were eight dislocations (1.5%) in the restricted group, vs. six dislocations (1.0%) in the unrestricted group. Patients in the unrestricted group resumed activities significantly faster and were more satisfied with their pace of recovery. CONCLUSION: A more liberal lifestyle restrictions and precautions protocol will not lead to worse dislocation rates after total hip arthroplasty, but will lead to earlier and better resumption of activities and higher patient satisfaction. These results appear to hold up for various surgical approaches.
Authors: Jetse Jelsma; Rik Pijnenburg; Harm W Boons; Peter J M G Eggen; Lucas L A Kleijn; Herman Lacroix; Hub J Noten Journal: J Orthop Date: 2016-10-26
Authors: Julio J Jauregui; Joseph K Kim; William P Shield; Matthew Harb; Emmanuel M Illical; Farshad Adib; Aditya V Maheshwari Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Matthew J Dietz; Adam E Klein; Brock A Lindsey; Stephen T Duncan; Jennifer M Eicher; Jonathan D Gillig; Brett R Smith; G Daxton Steele Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Rita Th E Harmsen; Melianthe P J Nicolai; Brenda L Den Oudsten; Hein Putter; Tsjitske M Haanstra; Peter A Nolte; Barend J Van Royen; Henk Elzevier Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Toby O Smith; Paul Jepson; Andrew Beswick; Gina Sands; Avril Drummond; Edward T Davis; Catherine M Sackley Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-07-04