Louis de Jong1,2, Taco M A L Klem3, Tjallingius M Kuijper4, Gert R Roukema5. 1. Department of General Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Jongl2@maasstadziekenhuis.nl. 2. Surgery Department, Franciscus Hospital, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Jongl2@maasstadziekenhuis.nl. 3. Department of General Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Science Board, Franciscus Hospital, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Surgery Department, Franciscus Hospital, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The minimally invasive (MI) anterolateral approach is a relatively new approach for the treatment of femoral neck fractures with a hemiarthroplasty (HA). There is limited research available presenting clinical outcomes after an HA using the MI approach. Therefore the aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of the MI and traditional anterolateral approaches in patients after HA. METHODS: Data were extracted from a prospective hip fracture database and completed by retrospective review of the electronic medical records. Patients undergoing HA in a level II trauma teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 1 May 2016 were enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients (67% female), 223 in the MI group (mean age, 82 ± 7) and 240 (mean age, 81 ± 8) in the traditional anterolateral group were enrolled. No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics. The surgeons experience measured by the operations performed per year was in favour of the MI anterolateral group (26 vs 18, p < 0.001). The median operating time for an MI approach was shorter (53 vs 69 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mortality rates (p = 0.131) and post-operative complications: haematomas (p = 0.63), dislocations (p = 0.63), deep surgical site infections (p = 0.66) and re-operations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the MI anterolateral approach has a minimally shorter operation time with no difference in post-operative complications and clinical outcomes. We, therefore, conclude that the MI anterolateral approach is a safe alternative for the traditional anterolateral approach with an improved operation time, a smaller incision and less surrounding tissue damage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level III retrospective cohort study.
PURPOSE: The minimally invasive (MI) anterolateral approach is a relatively new approach for the treatment of femoral neck fractures with a hemiarthroplasty (HA). There is limited research available presenting clinical outcomes after an HA using the MI approach. Therefore the aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of the MI and traditional anterolateral approaches in patients after HA. METHODS: Data were extracted from a prospective hip fracture database and completed by retrospective review of the electronic medical records. Patients undergoing HA in a level II trauma teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 1 May 2016 were enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients (67% female), 223 in the MI group (mean age, 82 ± 7) and 240 (mean age, 81 ± 8) in the traditional anterolateral group were enrolled. No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics. The surgeons experience measured by the operations performed per year was in favour of the MI anterolateral group (26 vs 18, p < 0.001). The median operating time for an MI approach was shorter (53 vs 69 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mortality rates (p = 0.131) and post-operative complications: haematomas (p = 0.63), dislocations (p = 0.63), deep surgical site infections (p = 0.66) and re-operations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the MI anterolateral approach has a minimally shorter operation time with no difference in post-operative complications and clinical outcomes. We, therefore, conclude that the MI anterolateral approach is a safe alternative for the traditional anterolateral approach with an improved operation time, a smaller incision and less surrounding tissue damage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level III retrospective cohort study.
Authors: Eberhard von Rottkay; Lars Rackwitz; Maximilian Rudert; Ulrich Nöth; Johannes Christian Reichert Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Nelson V Greidanus; Samir Chihab; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Michael Tanzer; Allan E Gross; Clive P Duncan Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Donavan K Murphy; Timmothy Randell; Kindyle L Brennan; Robert A Probe; Michael L Brennan Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: E N de Vries; T J Gardenbroek; H Ammerlaan; F Steenstra; A M J S Vervest; M Hogervorst; R van Velde Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Louis de Jong; Veronique van Rijckevorsel; Taco M A L Klem; Martijn Kuijper; Gert R Roukema Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.692