Marc Dominique Horsthemke1, Christoph Koenig2, Georg Gosheger3, Jendrik Hardes3, Steffen Hoell2. 1. Paracelsus Kliniken Deutschland GmbH, Osnabrück, Germany. Marc-007@t-online.de. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Paracelsus Klinik Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. 3. Department of General Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The minimally invasive direct anterior approach (DAA) is an established approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The complication rates in hip revision arthroplasty are much higher in comparison with primary THA. A right positioning of the implants and a soft tissue, especially the abductors spearing approach, is important to get good functional results and low complication rates. The aim of this study was to show the clinical and radiological outcome of isolated revision hip arthroplasty of the cup by using the DAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Aseptic cup revisions were carried out in 48 patients using the DAA. A decision to exchange the stem was made intraoperatively in seven cases. Complications, radiological and functional outcome were assessed. All of the data were collected retrospectively. The mean follow-up period was 65 months. RESULTS: In most of the cases the standard DAA was used. A proximal extension was nescessary in 15 patients (31%). The mean cup inclination angle after revision was 44° (min. 25°, max. 62°). Six implants (12.5%) were located outside of the Lewinnek safe zone. The centers of rotation of the revision implants were a mean of 0.6 cm superior (min. 0, max. 2.2 cm) and 0.5 cm lateral (min. 0.2 cm, max 1.2 cm) in comparison with the center of rotation in the healthy hip on the contralateral side. Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 50 to 91 (P = 0.03). Complications noted consisted of two periprosthetic infections (4.2%), one aseptic cup loosening (2.1%), two hematomas requiring revision (4.2%), and one case each of femoral nerve injury, lower-leg venous thrombosis, and pneumonia. No dislocations were observed and there were no cases of heterotopic ossification based on the Brooker classification. No persistent damage of the nervus cutaneus femoris lateralis was found at the follow-up examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The DAA represents a feasible option in hip revision arthroplasty. Anatomic reconstruction of the cup is reproducibly possible. Good medium-term results can also be achieved. Particularly in relation to dislocation, the complication rates are low. Due to the learning curve, the DAA should only be used in hip revision arthroplasty by those with sufficient experience in primary THA. Adequate data regarding stem revisions through the DAA are not available at the moment.
INTRODUCTION: The minimally invasive direct anterior approach (DAA) is an established approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The complication rates in hip revision arthroplasty are much higher in comparison with primary THA. A right positioning of the implants and a soft tissue, especially the abductors spearing approach, is important to get good functional results and low complication rates. The aim of this study was to show the clinical and radiological outcome of isolated revision hip arthroplasty of the cup by using the DAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Aseptic cup revisions were carried out in 48 patients using the DAA. A decision to exchange the stem was made intraoperatively in seven cases. Complications, radiological and functional outcome were assessed. All of the data were collected retrospectively. The mean follow-up period was 65 months. RESULTS: In most of the cases the standard DAA was used. A proximal extension was nescessary in 15 patients (31%). The mean cup inclination angle after revision was 44° (min. 25°, max. 62°). Six implants (12.5%) were located outside of the Lewinnek safe zone. The centers of rotation of the revision implants were a mean of 0.6 cm superior (min. 0, max. 2.2 cm) and 0.5 cm lateral (min. 0.2 cm, max 1.2 cm) in comparison with the center of rotation in the healthy hip on the contralateral side. Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 50 to 91 (P = 0.03). Complications noted consisted of two periprosthetic infections (4.2%), one aseptic cup loosening (2.1%), two hematomas requiring revision (4.2%), and one case each of femoral nerve injury, lower-leg venous thrombosis, and pneumonia. No dislocations were observed and there were no cases of heterotopic ossification based on the Brooker classification. No persistent damage of the nervus cutaneus femoris lateralis was found at the follow-up examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The DAA represents a feasible option in hip revision arthroplasty. Anatomic reconstruction of the cup is reproducibly possible. Good medium-term results can also be achieved. Particularly in relation to dislocation, the complication rates are low. Due to the learning curve, the DAA should only be used in hip revision arthroplasty by those with sufficient experience in primary THA. Adequate data regarding stem revisions through the DAA are not available at the moment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Direct anterior approach; Minimal invasive arthroplasty; Revision hip arthroplasty; Total hip replacement
Authors: Martin Thaler; Kristoff Corten; Michael Nogler; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Joseph Moskal Journal: Oper Orthop Traumatol Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 1.286