[Minimally Invasive Vs. Transgluteal Total Hip Replacement. A 3-month Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study]

Overview

Journal Orthopade

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2008 Sep 24

PMID 18810386

Citations 14

Authors

D Wohlrab

J-W Droege

T Mendel

K Brehme

K Riedl

S Leuchte

W Hein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the results after total hip replacement (THR) using an MIS approach versus a regular transgluteal approach (Bauer approach).

Method: We compared 20 THRs using a modified Watson-Jones minimally invasive approach (MIS group) with 20 conventionally performed THRs using a Bauer approach (control group). In all cases, the same implants (Trilogy cup, MAYO stem) were used. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), the visual analogue scale, myoglobin level, and creatinine kinase level were measured preoperatively and up to 3 months postoperatively.

Results: Advantages of the MIS group were evaluated using the HHS in the categories of activity and range of motion 6 weeks postoperatively. In terms of function, gait, and total HHS, we found benefits in the MIS group 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Up to 48 h postoperatively, patients in the MIS group had lower myoglobin blood levels. No differences were found in creatinine kinase levels, pain sensation as measured by visual analogue scale, or implant positioning.

Conclusion: Use of the minimally invasive Watson-Jones approach shows advantages compared with the transgluteal Bauer approach 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Up to now there has been no prospective randomized clinical study that has definitely shown the superiority of the minimally invasive procedure. For that reason, the conventional approaches in THR are still the gold standard.

Citing Articles

Novel Use of the Muscle Sparing Anterolateral Approach for Septic Arthritis of the Native Hip Joint in an Adult: A Case Report.

Zale C, Deal Jr J, Vaslow A, Lause G, Providence B J Orthop Case Rep. 2022; 11(6):1-4.

PMID: 35437505 PMC: 9009479. DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2021.v11.i06.2232.

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.

Ostojic M, Kordic D, Moro G, Ostojic Z Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 142(5):747-754.

PMID: 33386978 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03719-6.

Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis.

Putananon C, Tuchinda H, Arirachakaran A, Wongsak S, Narinsorasak T, Kongtharvonskul J Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017; 28(2):255-267.

PMID: 28956180 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-017-2046-1.

Mini-incision versus standard incision total hip arthroplasty regarding surgical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xu C, Li X, Song J, Cui Z, Yu B PLoS One. 2013; 8(11):e80021.

PMID: 24265792 PMC: 3827164. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080021.

A prospective randomized peri- and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach.

Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Guth S, Haversath M, Kowalczyk W, Kecskemethy A Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013; 5(3):e19.

PMID: 24191179 PMC: 3808794. DOI: 10.4081/or.2013.e19.

References

Higuchi F, Gotoh M, Yamaguchi N, Suzuki R, Kunou Y, Ooishi K . Minimally invasive uncemented total hip arthroplasty through an anterolateral approach with a shorter skin incision. J Orthop Sci. 2003; 8(6):812-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-003-0715-x. View

Nakamura S, Matsuda K, Arai N, Wakimoto N, Matsushita T . Mini-incision posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2004; 28(4):214-7. PMC: 3456936. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-004-0570-1. View

Bauer R, Kerschbaumer F, Poisel S, Oberthaler W . The transgluteal approach to the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (1978). 1979; 95(1-2):47-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF00379169. View

DiGioia 3rd A, Plakseychuk A, Levison T, Jaramaz B . Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(2):123-8. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2003.50025. View

Parvizi J, Sharkey P, Eslam Pour A, Rapuri V, Hozack W, Rothman R . Hip arthroplasty with minimally invasive surgery: a survey comparing the opinion of highly qualified experts vs patients. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(6 Suppl 2):38-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.004. View

Rottinger H . [The MIS anterolateral approach for THA]. Orthopade. 2006; 35(7):708, 710-15. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-006-0962-6. View

Kessler S, Mattes T, Cakir B, Reichel H, Kafer W . [The impact of preoperative function and pain on early patient-centred outcome after total hip arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007; 145(5):563-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-965668. View

Laffosse J, Chiron P, Accadbled F, Molinier F, Tricoire J, Puget J . Learning curve for a modified Watson-Jones minimally invasive approach in primary total hip replacement: analysis of complications and early results versus the standard-incision posterior approach. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007; 72(6):693-701. View

Wohlrab D, Hagel A, Hein W . [Advantages of minimal invasive total hip replacement in the early phase of rehabilitation]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004; 142(6):685-90. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-832447. View

10.

Suzuki K, Kawachi S, Sakai H, Nanke H, Morita S . Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a quantitative assessment of laboratory data and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci. 2005; 9(6):571-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-004-0830-3. View

11.

Berger R, Duwelius P . The two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: technique and results. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35(2):163-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00110-X. View

12.

Eslam Pour A, Parvizi J, Sharkey P, Hozack W, Rothman R . Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: what role does patient preconditioning play?. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(9):1920-7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01153. View

13.

Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, OBrien S . A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(4):701-10. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02645. View

14.

Hart R, Stipcak V, Janecek M, Visna P . Component position following total hip arthroplasty through a miniinvasive posterolateral approach. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005; 71(1):60-4. View

15.

Harris W . Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969; 51(4):737-55. View

16.

Gravius S, Wirtz D, Maus U, Andereya S, Muller-Rath R, Mumme T . [Minimally invasive approaches to the hip joint for total hip arthroplasty: state of the art within the scope of the "OrthoMIT" project for the development of an integrated platform for smart interventional orthopaedic surgery and traumatology]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007; 145(5):608-14. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-965691. View

17.

McLaren R . Prosthetic hip angulation. Radiology. 1973; 107(3):705-6. DOI: 10.1148/107.3.705. View

18.

Chung W, Liu D, Foo L . Mini-incision total hip replacement--surgical technique and early results. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2004; 12(1):19-24. DOI: 10.1177/230949900401200105. View

19.

Vavken P, Kotz R, Dorotka R . [Minimally invasive hip replacement--a meta-analysis]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007; 145(2):152-6. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-965170. View

20.

Leuchte S, Riedl K, Wohlrab D . [Immediate post-operative advantages of minimally invasive hip replacement - results of symmetry and load from the measurement of ground reaction force]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009; 147(1):69-78. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1038856. View