Literature DB >> 34557958

Supine versus lateral position for total hip replacement: accuracy of biomechanical reconstruction.

Niall P McGoldrick1, Stephanie Antoniades1, Sherif El Meniawy1, Cheryl Kreviazuk1, Paul E Beaulé1, George Grammatopoulos2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Restoration of normal hip anatomy and biomechanics is a key surgical goal for success in total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence, if any, that patient positioning in the supine and lateral decubitus positions has in achieving this goal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single center multi-surgeon case-matched series from a tertiary level referral center of patients undergoing primary unilateral THA for osteoarthritis between April 2018 and December 2019 was retrospectively analyzed. Patients (n = 200) were divided into two matched groups: supine (anterior approach, n = 100) and lateral decubitus (direct lateral or posterior/SuperPATH™ approaches, n = 100). Post-operative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were analyzed using a previously validated software (SurgiMap, Nemaris Inc., USA) for parameters of reconstruction of the hip in the coronal plane; leg length discrepancy, vertical and horizontal displacement of the center of rotation, femoral offset, and total offset.
RESULTS: Mean absolute leg length discrepancy in the supine group was 0.6 ± 3.3 mm (95% [CI] - 0.1 to 1.2 mm) versus 2.4 ± 3.8 mm (95% [CI] 1.6 to 3.1) in the lateral decubitus position (p < 0.001). The center of rotation was displaced medially by a mean of 3.2 ± 2.7 mm in the supine group versus 1.3 ± 4.0 mm in the lateral decubitus group (p < 0.001). For a surgical target of reconstructing both leg length and total offset within 5 mm of native anatomy, the supine group was more than twice as likely to achieve these goals with fewer outliers (OR 2.631, 95% [CI] 1.901-3.643) (76% v 30%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Total hip arthroplasty through the anterior approach in the supine position is more consistent and accurate for the restoration of leg length and total offset. Further study is required to assess how this translates with outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III-retrospective cohort study.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior approach; Arthroplasty; Center of rotation; Hip

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34557958     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04179-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   2.928


  36 in total

1.  Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Isao Asayama; Samatchai Chamnongkich; Kathy J Simpson; Tracy L Kinsey; Ormonde M Mahoney
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Variation in Use of Postoperative Precautions and Equipment Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Survey of the AAHKS and CAS Membership.

Authors:  Alberto V Carli; Stéphane Poitras; John C Clohisy; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Modified micro-superior percutaneously-assisted total hip: early experiences & case reports.

Authors:  James Chow; Brad Penenberg; Stephen Murphy
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-09

4.  Effect of femoral offset on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin A Cassidy; Manish S Noticewala; William Macaulay; Jonathan H Lee; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Hip offset in total hip arthroplasty: quantitative measurement with navigation.

Authors:  Manish Dastane; Lawrence D Dorr; Rupesh Tarwala; Zhinian Wan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Comparison of Patient Function during the First Six Weeks after Direct Anterior or Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): A Randomized Study.

Authors:  Christian P Christensen; Cale A Jacobs
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital.

Authors:  Mark C Callanan; Bryan Jarrett; Charles R Bragdon; David Zurakowski; Harry E Rubash; Andrew A Freiberg; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Changes of center of rotation and femoral offset in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jon A Bjarnason; Olav Reikeras
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-12

9.  Do we medialise the hip centre of rotation in total hip arthroplasty? Influence of acetabular offset and surgical technique.

Authors:  Michel P Bonnin; Pooler H A Archbold; Lucas Basiglini; Michel H Fessy; David E Beverland
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.135

10.  Surgical Approach and Reaming Depth Influence the Direction and Magnitude of Acetabular Center of Rotation Changes During Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jessica R Benson; Meinusha Govindarajan; Jeffrey M Muir; Iain R Lamb; Peter K Sculco
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-06-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.