Literature DB >> 25900826

Tissue preserving total hip arthroplasty using superior capsulotomy.

N Capuano1, A Del Buono, N Maffulli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goals of a tissue-preserving minimally invasive approach to the hip are to allow early short-term recovery, achieve hip joint stability, minimize muscle strength loss from surgery, spare the peri-articular soft tissues, and allow unrestricted motion in the long term. INDICATIONS: Hip arthroplasty in patients with no pre-existing hardware, with a sufficient space between the acetabular rim and greater trochanter; management of subcapital femoral fractures in older patients. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Protrusio acetabuli. Joint stiffness. This is the main concern when undertaking the superior capsulotomy. Stiffness may result from bone causes, including ankylosis, large osteophytes, bone bridges etc., extra-articular retraction of surrounding soft tissues with capsular contracture of both ligaments and muscles, or a combination of bony and soft tissues causes, resulting in limited adduction. Indeed, maximal adduction is necessary to increase the distance between the apex of the greater trochanter and the superior acetabular edge. In the approach described in the present article, the real limitation is the impossibility to introduce a straight stem through the trochanteric fossa without weakening the trochantericarea. If adduction is restricted, excessive lateralization of the femoral stem would result in postoperative pain and discomfort, especially as we advocate immediate full weight bearing. Even though patients fare better when the trochanteric area is intact, many types of stem such as the GTS (Biomet), or stem Microplasty (Biomet) or even stem Parva (Adler Ortho) may pressurize the internal bone of the trochanteric structures. Therefore, these stems may be implanted in maximal hip adduction. This is the case in coxa profunda or coxa vara, which require more invasive and destabilizing surgical approaches. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Lateral position, 5-8 cm incision from the tip of the greater trochanter, identification and transaction of piriformis tendon. Anterior mobilization of the gluteus minimus and exposure of the trochanteric fossa. Removal of the superior portion (bone block) of the head and neck, and preparation of the femoral canal. Preparation of the acetabulum. Complete muscle relaxion is helpful to proceed to satisfactory trial reduction. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Patients may progress to motion and weight bearing without restriction.
RESULTS: From April 2009 to December 2010, the first author operated on 463 patients, 275 for osteoarthrosis of the hip, and 188 for subcapital fractures of the femoral neck. Thereof, 375 (75 %) patients could walk with full weight within 6 h from the operation, and climb stairs 24 h later with low loss of blood, and rapid recovery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25900826     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-013-0242-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  15 in total

1.  Minimally invasive total hip replacement and perioperative management: early experience.

Authors:  Barry J Waldman
Journal:  J South Orthop Assoc       Date:  2002

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

3.  The economic impact of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul J Duwelius; Hans S Moller; Robert L Burkhart; Frederick Waller; Yingxing Wu; Gary L Grunkemeier
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Minimal incision surgery as a risk factor for early failure of total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bradley P Graw; Steven T Woolson; Heather G Huddleston; Stuart B Goodman; James I Huddleston
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Age-related appearance of muscle trauma in primary total hip arthroplasty and the benefit of a minimally invasive approach for patients older than 70 years.

Authors:  Michael Müller; Stephan Tohtz; Marc Dewey; Ivonne Springer; Carsten Perka
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-12-02       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Prospective and comparative study of the anterolateral mini-invasive approach versus minimally invasive posterior approach for primary total hip replacement. Early results.

Authors:  J M Laffosse; P Chiron; F Molinier; H Bensafi; J Puget
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-10-12       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  THA performed using conventional and navigated tissue-preserving techniques.

Authors:  Stephen B Murphy; Timo M Ecker; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The early dislocation rate in primary total hip arthroplasty following the posterior approach with posterior soft-tissue repair.

Authors:  Steven H Weeden; Wayne G Paprosky; Jack W Bowling
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: a quantitative review of the literature.

Authors:  Ansar Mahmood; Mohammed S Zafar; Ibrar Majid; Nicola Maffulli; John Thompson
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 4.291

10.  Soft tissue damage after minimally invasive THA.

Authors:  Jakob van Oldenrijk; Piet V J M Hoogland; Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof; Ruby Corveleijn; Tom W H Noordenbos; Matthias U Schafroth
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  6 in total

1.  Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Nikolai Ramadanov; Simon Bueschges; Kuiliang Liu; Roman Klein; Ruediger Schultka
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.359

2.  One-staged combined hip and knee arthroplasty: retrospective comparative study at mid-term follow-up.

Authors:  Stefano Petrillo; Matteo Marullo; Michele Corbella; Paolo Perazzo; Sergio Romagnoli
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  Direct anterior approach (DAA) vs. conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty: A RCT meta-analysis with an overview of related meta-analyses.

Authors:  Philip Lazaru; Simon Bueschges; Nikolai Ramadanov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Assessment of the Learning Curve of Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty in an Asian Population.

Authors:  Pengfei Lei; Zhan Liao; Jiang Peng; Guang Li; Qian Zhou; Xiao Xiao; Chunhua Yang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  SuperPATH Minimally Invasive Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty of Femoral Neck Fractures in the Elderly: Preliminary Clinical Results.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Wang; Hai Lan; Zheng-Xia Hu; Kai-Nan Li; Zheng-Hao Wang; Jin Luo; Xu-Dong Long
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-12-29       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the SuperPATH Approach in Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yanzhi Ge; Zuxiang Chen; Qisong Chen; Yanbin Fu; Mengqiang Fan; Ting Li; Letian Shan; Peijian Tong; Li Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.