Literature DB >> 33386978

Anterolateral minimally invasive hip approach offered faster rehabilitation with lower complication rates compared to the minimally invasive posterior hip approach-a University clinic case control study of 120 cases.

Marko Ostojić1, David Kordić2, Goran Moro2, Zdenko Ostojić2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The surgical approach used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been identified as a factor affecting the outcome. In our University Hospital, the posterior surgical approach is the gold standard. The Rottinger approach is an anterolateral approach which is truly minimally invasive, as it does not vertically cut any muscle fibers. The objective of this study was to determine the difference in surgical outcomes between the posterior hip approach and the Rottinger approach which was newly adopted at our Hospital.
METHODS: In a retrospective study, a total of 120 patients underwent THA; 60 patients using the Rottinger approach by the young consultant surgeon and another 60 patients using the standard posterior approach by the senior orthopaedic surgeon. Patients have been controlled for age, gender, and ASA grades. All preoperative demographic data showed no significant difference between the control and study groups. The following parameters were analyzed: incision length, duration of the surgery, intraoperative blood loss, WOMAC index, Harris Hip Score, range of motion at 3 and 12 months after surgery, time of quitting the crutches, and willingness for the contralateral hip arthroplasty.
RESULTS: WOMAC index, surgical time, and incision lengths have been without significant difference in both approaches. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the Rottinger group (CI:  - 10.903,  - 0.064). Harris Hip score was significantly higher (CI: 4.564, 12.973) in the Rottinger group at 3 months, but similar (CI:  - 3.484, 2.134) at 12 months follow-up. At 3 months, active flexion and extension were significantly higher in the Rottinger group (CI: 0.595, 8.239; 2.487, 4.480, respectively), and active abduction and passive adduction (CI:  - 5.662,  - 0.338;  - 6.290,  - 1.410, respectively) in the posterior approach group. Patients in the Rottinger approach group on average quit crutches 3 weeks earlier and had no postoperative dislocations compared to 2 dislocations in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The Rottinger approach offered faster rehabilitation with less need for crutches and with lower complication rates.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hip arthroplasty; Hip arthroplasty approach; Minimally invasive surgery; Posterior approach; Rottinger approach

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33386978     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03719-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  23 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive or limited incision hip replacement: clarification and classification.

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

2.  The Rottinger approach for total hip arthroplasty: technique and review of the literature.

Authors:  Benjamin J Hansen; Rhett K Hallows; Scott S Kelley
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-09

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.  Implant Survival After Minimally Invasive Anterior or Anterolateral Vs. Conventional Posterior or Direct Lateral Approach: An Analysis of 21,860 Total Hip Arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2008 to 2013).

Authors:  Knut Erik Mjaaland; Svein Svenningsen; Anne Marie Fenstad; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes; Lars Nordsletten
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Primary stability of total hip stems: does surgical technique matter?

Authors:  Wolfram Steens; Robert Souffrant; Daniel Kluess; Wolfram Mittelmeier; Rainer Bader; Alexander Katzer
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Long-term migration characteristics of the Corail hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: a 14-year radiostereometric analysis follow-up study.

Authors:  Owain Critchley; Stuart Callary; Graham Mercer; David Campbell; Christopher Wilson
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Early Failure of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is Surgical Approach a Risk Factor?

Authors:  Marc R Angerame; Thomas K Fehring; John L Masonis; J Bohannon Mason; Susan M Odum; Bryan D Springer
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 8.  Hip replacement.

Authors:  Rory J Ferguson; Antony Jr Palmer; Adrian Taylor; Martyn L Porter; Henrik Malchau; Sion Glyn-Jones
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Periprosthetic acetabular radiolucency progression in mid-term follow-up of the articular surface replacement hip system.

Authors:  Sean J Matuszak; Vincent P Galea; James W Connelly; Janus Christiansen; Orhun Muratoglu; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Patient expectation fulfilment following total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Liam Z Yapp; Nicholas D Clement; Deborah J Macdonald; Colin R Howie; Chloe E H Scott
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  1 in total

1.  Does drainage affect development of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Congcong Wei; Meng Yang; Kun Chu; Jia Huo; Xiao Chen; Huijie Li
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 1.573

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.