Comparison of the stability of direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.0108

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: At present, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty is gradually developed, and becomes one of the representative types of total hip arthroplasty. The direct anterior approach is characterized by small tissue injury, low postoperative complications and rapid postoperative recovery. Compared with other approaches, there is still a lot of controversy on whether the approach can obtain better early and long-term effects.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of direct anterior approach and posterolateral approach in minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS: Totally 88 patients with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty from September 2015 to September 2016 in the First Department of Orthopedics, Changzhou City Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected as the subjects. The patients were divided into direct anterior approach group and posterolateral approach group, with 44 patients in each group. The incision length, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, blood transfusion volume, hemoglobin difference before and after operation, time of bed walking, postoperative acetabular abduction angle and acetabular anteversion angle were recorded and compared. Blood sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein levels, complications (infection, vascular injury and hip dislocation), hip function Harris score preoperatively, postoperatively 1, 3, and 6 months were analyzed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) There was no significant difference in the postoperative acetabular abduction angle and acetabular anteversion angle between both groups (P > 0.05). (2) The average operation time of the patients in the direct anterior approach group was significantly longer than that in the posterolateral approach group (P < 0.05). The length of incision, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hemoglobin difference, postoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate, postoperative C-reactive protein and time of bed walking were significantly lower in direct anterior approach group than in posterolateral approach group (P < 0.05). (3) Harris score of direct anterior approach group was significantly higher than that of posterolateral approach group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in Harris score between the two groups before and 6 months after operation (P > 0.05). (4) There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). (5) There is no significant difference in the efficacy during 6-month follow-up and postoperative complications between posterolateral approach and direct anterior approach, but the direct anterior approach is less traumatic, with faster postoperative recovery, higher joint stability, more consistent with minimally invasive surgery and the concept of rapid rehabilitation.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

Key words: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Prosthesis Implantation, Surgical Operation, Invasive, Tissue Engineering

CLC Number:

R318

Gao Yi, Qu Yu-xing, Zhou Qi, Wang Bin, Zheng Chong, Luo Li-li. Comparison of the stability of direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty [J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2018, 22(7): 997-1002.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] 曹俊培,沈谷丰,陆佳龙,等. 改良 Hardinge 外侧入路同期双侧全髋置换术的效果及围手术期安全性研究[J]. 疑难病杂志, 2016,15(12):1289-1292.

[2] 鲍荣华,王国平,夏晓斌,等. 直接前入路微创全髋关节置换术治疗晚期股骨头坏死[J]. 中医正骨, 2016, 28(3):61-63.

[3] Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Rathod PA, et al. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):455.

[4] Mohan R, Yi PH, Hansen EN. Evaluating online information regarding the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(5):803-807.

[5] 黄文汉,夏虹. 直接前侧入路THA是否较后侧入路康复更快、安全性更高[J]. 中国骨科临床与基础研究杂志, 2014,6(1):59.

[6] Homma Y, Baba T, Sano K, et al. Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2016;40(8):1587-1593.

[7] Zawadsky MW, Paulus MC, Murray PJ, et al. Early outcome comparison between the direct anterior approach and the mini-incision posterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: 150 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1256-1260.

[8] 冯国英,王心宽,张辉,等. 改良Hardinge入路在人工全髋关节置换中应用体会[J]. 现代仪器与医疗,2014,20(4):47-49.

[9] 俞银贤,易诚青,马金忠,等. 微创直接前入路与传统后外侧入路全髋关节置换治疗股骨头坏死的临床疗效比较[J].中国骨伤, 2016,29(8):702-707.

[10] 彭慧明,钱文伟,翁习生,等. 直接前入路微创髋关节置换学习曲线早期病例的短期结果[J]. 中国骨与关节外科, 2016, 9(2): 122-127.

[11] 綦珂,李甲,李全,等. 直接前方入路与后外侧入路在初次全髋关节置换术中的疗效分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志电子版, 2016, 10(3):260-264.

[12] Rathod PA, Orishimo KF, Kremenic IJ, et al. Similar improvement in gait parameters following direct anterior & posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1261-1264.

[13] Tsukada S, Wakui M. Lower dislocation rate following total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach than via posterior approach: five-year-average follow-up results. Open Orthop J. 2014;9(1):157-162.

[14] 林伟文,黄瑞良,赖茂松,等. 髋关节置换术后血沉、C反应蛋白、血清淀粉样蛋白A的定量分析及其临床意义[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2016, 26(13):103-106.

[15] 高辉,陈震东,徐房添,等. 直接前侧入路全髋关节置换的早期临床疗效[J]. 中国骨科临床与基础研究杂志,2016, 8(3):146-151.

[16] 李文龙,范亚楠,张蕾蕾,等. 微创全髋关节置换术直接前侧入路与外侧小切口入路的对比研究[J]. 中医正骨, 2016, 28(3): 24-29.

[17] 曾昭池,郭中凯,朱志勇,等. 微创与常规全髋关节置换术的临床疗效比较[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志,2013,21(12):1173-1176.

[18] 杜绍良,张锡光,陆景华,等. 微创全髋关节置换术围手术期深静脉血栓的临床诊治研究[J]. 医疗装备,2015,28(12):142-143.

[19] 严贤科.前路微创与常规全髋关节置换的应用效果[J]. 牡丹江医学院学报,2015,36(6):26-28.

[20] 王荣,李秀霞,高明暄,等. 微创与传统全髋关节置换术临床疗效对比的系统评价[J]. 中国骨伤,2016,29(2):172-178.

[21] 陈震东,高辉,何春耒. 直接前方入路微创全髋关节置换术研究进展[J]. 赣南医学院学报,2015,35(6):980-984.

[22] 胡方煜,赖仁欢,梁木荣,等. SuperPATH入路微创人工全髋关节置换术的临床应用[J]. 微创医学,2016,11(3):416-418.

[23] 何启新,乔巨峰,刘永青. SuperPath微创人工全髋关节置换术与常规全髋关节置换术早期疗效比较[J]. 广东医学院学报, 2016, 34(3):289-292.

[24] 姚坚,丁海.SuperPath微创人工全髋关节置换术的研究进展[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志,2016,30(9):1170-1173.

[25] 邱淳烈.小切口外侧入路微创全髋关节置换术的临床效果观察[J]. 中国医药指南,2016,14(29):101-102.

[26] 王万军,张国锋,沈是铭.微创人工全髋关节置换术在股骨头坏死的应用[J]. 浙江创伤外科,2014,19(6):971-973.

[27] 唐旭东,陈安富,黄凯,等. 前外侧微创入路与后外侧常规入路全髋关节置换的临床研究[J]. 实用医院临床杂志, 2014,11(3): 106-108.

[28] 杨友刚,戚世鹏,张德兵,等. 微创全髋关节置换治疗老年股骨颈骨折的手术分析[J]. 医学综述,2014,20(9):1672-1673.

[29] 高辉,刘承鸿,何春耒. DAMIS微创全髋关节置换术的学习曲线及并发症[J]. 赣南医学院学报,2016,36(6):907-911.

[30] 张诚毅,李敏,刘春新. 前外侧微创全髋关节置换术的效果分析[J]. 中国现代医生,2016,54(29):85-87.

[31] 黄纯聪. 微创人工全髋关节置换术临床疗效的Meta分析[J]. 中国社区医师,2016,32(32):51-52.