[Clinical results of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty]

Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

It remains uncertain if the new SuperPATH approach benefits patients in artificial hip joint replacement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the short-term outcome of SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip joint replacement.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to April 2020 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing SuperPATH with conventional approaches in hip joint replacement. We measured surgical, functional, and radiological outcomes. Mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled using random effects models and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs involving 726 patients met the inclusion criteria, one trial with a level I evidence, 11 trials with level II evidence. The overall meta-analysis showed that SuperPATH approach reduced incision length (MD = − 4.84, 95% CI − 7.04 to − 2.64, p < 0.01), pain VAS 7 day postoperatively (MD = − 1.39, 95% CI − 2.57 to − 0.21, p = 0.03), and HHS 7 day postoperatively (MD = 10.24, 95% CI 0.27 to 20.21, p = 0.05). The two approaches did not differ in acetabular cup positioning angles, intra- and postoperative blood loss, hospitalization period, and postoperative complications. Hip replacement via SuperPATH approach had a longer operation time than hip replacement via conventional approaches.

Conclusions

SuperPATH approach showed better results in decreasing incision length and early pain intensity as well as improvement of short-term functional outcome. Long-term outcomes of SuperPATH approach need to be investigated.

Minimally invasive anterior muscle-sparing versus a transgluteal approach for hemiarthroplasty in femoral neck fractures-a prospective randomised controlled trial including 190 elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The relevance of femoral neck fractures (FNFs) increases with the ageing of numerous societies, injury-related decline is observed in many patients. Treatment strategies have evolved towards primary joint replacement, but the impact of different approaches remains a matter of debate. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the benefit of an anterior minimally-invasive (AMIS) compared to a lateral Hardinge (LAT) approach for hemiarthroplasty in these oftentimes frail patients.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-nine patients were screened during the 44-months trial, aiming at the evaluation of 150 patients > 60 yrs. of age. Eligible patients were randomised using an online-tool with completely random assignment. As primary endpoint, early mobility, a predictor for long-term outcomes, was evaluated at 3 weeks via the "Timed up and go" test (TUG). Secondary endpoints included the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), pain, complications, one-year mobility and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 190 patients were randomised; both groups were comparable at baseline, with a predominance for frailty-associated factors in the AMIS-group. At 3 weeks, 146 patients were assessed for the primary outcome. There was a reduction in the median duration of TUG performance of 21.5% (CI [- 41.2,4.7], p = 0.104) in the AMIS-arm (i.e., improved mobility). This reduction was more pronounced in patients with signs of frailty or cognitive impairment. FIM scores increased on average by 6.7 points (CI [0.5-12.8], p = 0.037), pain measured on a 10-point visual analogue scale decreased on average by 0.7 points (CI: [- 1.4,0.0], p = 0.064). The requirement for blood transfusion was lower in the AMIS- group, the rate of complications comparable, with a higher rate of soft tissue complications in the LAT-group. The mortality was higher in the AMIS-group.

CONCLUSION

These results, similar to previous reports, support the concept that in elderly patients at risk of frailty, the AMIS approach for hemiarthroplasty can be beneficial, since early mobilisation and pain reduction potentially reduce deconditioning, morbidity and loss of independence. The results are, however, influenced by a plethora of factors. Only improvements in every aspect of the therapeutic chain can lead to optimisation of treatment and improve outcomes in this growing patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01408693 (registered August 3rd 2011).

The direct anterior minimal invasive approach in total hip replacement: a prospective departmental study on the learning curve

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of new surgical techniques is normal, but seldom monitored in real time. The purpose of this study was to monitor the learning curve when introducing a new surgical technique to a department. We did a prospective evaluation of the learning curve when introducing the minimally invasive direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. We wish to investigate whether there is a learning curve for the direct anterior minimal invasive approach in total hip replacement and what are the early complications to this approach.

METHODS

The department changed from the direct lateral approach to the minimally invasive direct anterior approach. We monitored the first 522 patients operated using this approach with regards to patient outcome scores and complications 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The last 250 patients operated all had significantly better results with regard to patient outcome scores and cup placement. We investigated 100 patients at a time and compared them with the rest of the patient and found the same pattern. This pattern ends when we reach patients somewhere between 200-300.

DISCUSSIONS

We established the learning curve on a departmental level with regards to introduction of the minimal invasive direct anterior approach. We see a steady improvement in scores with regards to patient outcome scores and cup positioning until we reach a steady-state. The learning curve here flattens out. Departments must understand that one should expect early complications and somewhat less than optimal results at first when introducing this new surgical technique.

One-stage bilateral implantation of a calcar-guided short-stem in total hip arthroplasty : Minimally invasive modified anterolateral approach in supine position

Objective

One-stage bilateral, muscle-preserving, calcar-guided implantation technique through the modified minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position.

Indications

Bilateral primary/secondary osteoarthritis of the hip; bilateral femoral head necrosis; ASA I–III.

Contraindications

ASA IV; severe osteoporosis, other factors jeopardizing stable anchorage of cementless, calcar-guided short-stem; infection.

Surgical technique

Supine position. Skin incision. Opening of fascia; blunt dissection, pushing gluteal muscles dorsally with the index finger. Capsulectomy. Individual osteotomy according to preoperative plan to determine short-stem position. Remove femoral head. Prepare acetabulum. Position cup. Femoral preparation with the curved opening awl. Spare greater trochanter and gluteal muscles. Insert trial rasps in ascending sizes with “round-the-corner” technique. Select offset version, then trial reposition with intraoperative radiograph and implantation of the definitive implant. Wound closure. Consultation with the anesthesiologist to confirm a stable patient. Same procedure on contralateral hip.

Postoperative management

Mobilization on day 1 with immediate full weight bearing. Remove wound drains and urinary catheter (only female patients) on day 2. Intensive protocol of physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Thrombosis prophylaxis. Rehabilitation from day 7.

Results

Almost 500 patients have undergone surgery since 2010. First consecutive 54 patients (108 hips) prospectively evaluated. After 2 years, Harris Hip Score was 98.8; satisfaction on visual analogue scale was 9.9. Low peri- and postoperative complication rates; no implant revisions.

Conclusion

The muscle-sparing approach and the special “round-the-corner” technique in one-stage bilateral procedure leads to rapid mobilization and rehabilitation with excellent early clinical results and high satisfaction rates.