Comparison of early outcomes of minimally invasive SuperCap approach and conventional posterolateral approach for femoral head replacement

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1461

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Compared with the traditional posterolateral approach, the SuperCap approach for the treatment of femoral neck fractures has the advantageous of short incision, less damage to the soft tissue around the hip joint during the operation, no need for dislocation, and the patients can do postoperative functional exercise more early.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive SuperCap approach and posterolateral approach.

METHODS: A total of 48 cases from October 2016 to April 2018 were collected, including 24 cases of SuperCap approach (SuperCap group) and 24 cases of conventional approach (conventional group). Operation time, length of incision, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative hospital stay and complications were recorded in both groups. The hip joint function was evaluated before surgery and 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 30, 90, and 180 days after surgery by the use of Visual Analogue Scale and HHS. The time up and go test, timed stair climb test, and short performance physical battery test were conducted at 3, 5, 7, 14, 30, 90, and 180 days after surgery.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The length of incision in the SuperCap group was shorter than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (P > 0.05). (2) One case suffered from deep vein thrombosis in the SuperCap group and two cases suffered from deep vein thrombosis in the conventional group. No complications such as infection, dislocation, prosthesis loosening, sciatic nerve injury and paralysis occurred in the two groups. (3) The Visual Analogue Scale scores of the SuperCap group were lower than that of the conventional group (P < 0.05). The HHS scores at 1, 3 and 5 days after operation were higher in the SuperCap group than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). There was no difference in above scores at the other time points between the two groups (P > 0.05). (4)The results of the time up and go test on the 5^th day after operation in the SuperCap group were better than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). The results of the timed stair climb test on the 14^th and 30^th days after operation were better in the SuperCap group than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). The results of the short performance physical battery test within 30 days after operation were better in the SuperCap group than that of the conventional group (P < 0.05). (5) The results showed that compared with the traditional approach, SuperCap approach has the advantages of short incision, small intraoperative soft tissue injury, rapid recovery of hip joint function, light pain, and good coordination of hip muscles.

Key words: minimally invasive, artificial femoral head replacement, SuperCap approach, traditional posterolateral approach, femoral neck fracture, hip, artificial joint, HHS score, short performance physical battery test

CLC Number:

R459.9|R683.42|R318

Wu Mingzhou, Li Rongqun, Zhou Jun, Zhang Lianfang, Zhu Feng, Wang Yijun, Sun Houyi, Zhang Weicheng, Xu Yaozeng. Comparison of early outcomes of minimally invasive SuperCap approach and conventional posterolateral approach for femoral head replacement[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2019, 23(32): 5103-5109.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1]Becker DJ,Kilgore ML,Morrisey MA.The societal burden of osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep.2010;12(3):186-191.

[2]Frerichmann U,Raschke MJ,Stockle U.Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly. Data from health insurance providers on more than 23 million insured persons-part 2. Unfallchirurg. 2007;110(7):610-616.

[3]Roche JJ,Wenn RT,Sahota O.Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. Br Med J.2005;331(7529):1374.

[4]徐辰,毛远青,朱振安.老年股骨颈骨折治疗进展[J].国际骨科学杂志,2015,52(2):109-113.

[5]Murphy SB,Tannast M.Conventional vs minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study of rehabilitation and complications. Orthopade.2006;35(7):761-764,766-768.

[6]张涵,员晋,兰海.Super PATH微创髋关节置换术治疗老年股骨颈骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2018,20(5):400-406.

[7]贾建波,禹宝庆,吴良浩,等.传统后路与微创SuperPath入路的半髋置换治疗老年股骨颈骨折疗效比较[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志,2017,3(4):223-231.

[8]Qurashi S,Chinnappa J,Rostiano P.SuperPATH Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty-An Australian Experience. Reconstruct Rev.2016;6(2):43-48.

[9]Guralnik JM,Simonsick EM,Ferrucci L,et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission.J Gerontol.1994;49(2): M85-94.

[10]Bean JF,Kiely DK,LaRose S,et al.Is stair climb power a clinically relevant measure of leg power impairments in at-risk older adults? Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2007;88(5):604-609.

[11]Berger RA.Mini-incision:two for the price of one!J Orthoped. 2002;25:472498.

[12]夏良政,李胜华,袁中山,等.普通双极股骨头SuperPATH入路治疗老年股骨颈骨折[J].中国组织工程研究, 2018,22(19): 2953-2960.

[13]Chow J,Penenberg B,Murphy S.Modified micro-superior percutaneously assisted total hip:early experiences & case reports.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med.2011;4(3):146-150.

[14]Rasuli KJ,Gofton W.Percutaneously assisted total hip(PATH) and Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) arthroplasty:learning curves and early outcomes. Ann Transl Med.2015;3(13):179-185.

[15]Gofton W, Chow J,Olsen KD,et al. Thirty-day readmission rate and discharge status following total hip arthroplasty using the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip surgical technique. Int Orthop.2015;39(5):847-851.

[16]Abe K,Yuda S,Yasui K,et al.Soleal vein dilatation assessed by ultrasonography is an independent predictor for deep vein thrombosis after major orthopedic surgery.J Cardiol. 2017; 69(5):756-762.

[17]Murphy SB. Technique of tissue preserving,minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a superior capsulotomy.Oper Tech Orthop.2004;14(2):94-101.

[18]Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty Collaborative Investigators, Bhandari M,Matta JM,et al.Outcomes following the single-incision anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty:a multicenter observational study. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009; 40:329-342.

[19]Alexandrov T, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR.Early clinical and radiographic results of minimally invasive anterior approach hip arthroplasty.Adv Orthop.2014;2014:1-7.

[20]Chow J,Penenberg B,Murphy S.Modified micro-superior percutaneously- assisted total hip: early experiences & case reports.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med.2011;4:146-150.

[21]Tsukada S,Wakui M.Minimally invasive intermuscular approach does not improve outcomes in bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.J Orthop Sci.2010; 15:753-757.

[22]Schneider K, Audige L, Kuehnel SP,et al.The direct anterior approach in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.Int Orthop.2012;36:1773-1781.

[23]Swift C,Ftouh S,Langford P,et al. Interdisciplinary management of hip fracture.Clin Med (Lond).2016;16(6): 541-544

[24]DeAngelis J, Ademi A, Staff I, et al. Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized trial with early follow-up. J Orthop Trauma.2010;26:135-140.

[25]Ning G,Li Y,Wu Q,et al. Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures:an updated meta-analysis.Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.2014; 24:7-14.

[26]贾建波,禹宝庆,吴良浩.微创SuperPath入路人工股骨头置换术治疗老年股骨颈骨折的近期疗效[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2016, 18(11):938-944.

[27]李建,邱冰,甄东.SuperPATH入路与传统入路髋关节置换临床疗效的Meta分析[J].中国组织工程研究,2018,22(15):2453-2460.

[28]Weber T,Al-Munajjed AA,Verkerke GJ,et al.Influence of minimally invasive total hip replacement on hip reaction forces and their orientations.J Orthop Res.2014; 32(12):1680-1687.

[29]黄文文,尹东,黄宇,等.SuperPATH和前外侧小切口入路THA的短期疗效比较[J].实用骨科杂志,2018,24(7):593-596,604.