Jingyang You1, Yong Zheng1, Bigang Ruan1, Bo Zheng1, Jiangrong Fan1. 1. Department of Traumatic Orthopedics, Xianning Central Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Science and Technology Xianning 437100, Hubei Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) and Orthopadisehe Chirurgie Munchen (OCM) in the prone position on early joint function after primary hip arthroplasty in young adults. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 85 patients who received primary hip arthroplasty between September 2018 and January 2020 were enrolled and divided into the OCM group (43 cases with OCM) and the DAA group (42 cases with DAA) according to the different surgical methods. The general operative conditions, postoperative conditions and imaging manifestations, postoperative pain, changes in WOMAC scale scores, and the occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The operation time of the OCM group was shorter, and the blood loss and drainage volume in the OCM group during the operation were lower than those of the DAA group (P<0.05). The time spent in bed and hospital stay of the OCM group were shorter than those of the DAA group (P<0.05). The anteversion and abduction angles of patients in the OCM group were smaller than those in the DAA group at 1 month after surgery (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores between the two groups at day 1, 3 and 7 after surgery (P>0.05). At 1 month after surgery, patients in the OCM group had lower pain level and higher activity level than the DAA group (P<0.05). The activity score in the OCM group was higher than that in the DAA group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in WOMAC scores between the two groups at 1 year after surgery (P>0.05). The total incidence of adverse reactions within 7 days after surgery in the OCM group was lower than that in the DAA group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with the DAA group, the OCM group had shorter operative time, quicker recovery after surgery, and lower postoperative pain scores. In the long term, these two surgical methods showed little difference in hip joint function recovery. AJTR
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) and Orthopadisehe Chirurgie Munchen (OCM) in the prone position on early joint function after primary hip arthroplasty in young adults. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 85 patients who received primary hip arthroplasty between September 2018 and January 2020 were enrolled and divided into the OCM group (43 cases with OCM) and the DAA group (42 cases with DAA) according to the different surgical methods. The general operative conditions, postoperative conditions and imaging manifestations, postoperative pain, changes in WOMAC scale scores, and the occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The operation time of the OCM group was shorter, and the blood loss and drainage volume in the OCM group during the operation were lower than those of the DAA group (P<0.05). The time spent in bed and hospital stay of the OCM group were shorter than those of the DAA group (P<0.05). The anteversion and abduction angles of patients in the OCM group were smaller than those in the DAA group at 1 month after surgery (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores between the two groups at day 1, 3 and 7 after surgery (P>0.05). At 1 month after surgery, patients in the OCM group had lower pain level and higher activity level than the DAA group (P<0.05). The activity score in the OCM group was higher than that in the DAA group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in WOMAC scores between the two groups at 1 year after surgery (P>0.05). The total incidence of adverse reactions within 7 days after surgery in the OCM group was lower than that in the DAA group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with the DAA group, the OCM group had shorter operative time, quicker recovery after surgery, and lower postoperative pain scores. In the long term, these two surgical methods showed little difference in hip joint function recovery. AJTR
Authors: Christos Th Vottis; Evanthia Mitsiokapa; Vasilios G Igoumenou; Panayiotis D Megaloikonomos; Ioannis P Galanopoulos; George Georgoudis; Panayiotis Koulouvaris; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos; Andreas F Mavrogenis Journal: Orthopedics Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 1.390
Authors: Anne R Wright; Andrew B Richardson; Christian K Kikuchi; Daniel B Goldberg; Jay M Marumoto; Darryl M Kan Journal: Hawaii J Health Soc Welf Date: 2019-11
Authors: Charles M M Peeters; Eva Visser; Cornelis L P Van de Ree; Taco Gosens; Brenda L Den Oudsten; Jolanda De Vries Journal: Injury Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Flavia K Borges; Mohit Bhandari; Ameen Patel; Victoria Avram; Ernesto Guerra-Farfán; Alben Sigamani; Masood Umer; Maria Tiboni; Anthony Adili; John Neary; Vikas Tandon; Parag K Sancheti; AbdelRahman Lawendy; Richard Jenkinson; Mmampapatla Ramokgopa; Bruce M Biccard; Wojciech Szczeklik; Chew Yin Wang; Giovanni Landoni; Patrice Forget; Ekaterine Popova; Gavin Wood; Aamer Nabi Nur; Bobby John; Paweł Ślęczka; Robert J Feibel; Mariano Balaguer-Castro; Benjamin Deheshi; Mitchell Winemaker; Justin de Beer; Richard Kolesar; Jordi Teixidor-Serra; Jordi Tomas-Hernandez; Michael McGillion; Harsha Shanthanna; Iain Moppett; Jessica Vincent; Shirley Pettit; Valerie Harvey; Leslie Gauthier; Kim Alvarado; P J Devereaux Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.692