Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, San Polo Hospital, via Galvani, 1, 34074 Monfalcone, GO, Italy.
J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Sep;12(3):123-9. doi: 10.1007/s10195-011-0144-0. Epub 2011 Jul 12.
Given the increasing demand for tissue-sparing surgery, the surgical approach is the subject of lively debate in total hip replacement. The aim of this paper is to compare the efficacy of the minimally invasive direct anterior approach and the standard lateral approach to total hip replacement surgery by observing intra- and perioperative outcomes.
The authors conducted a retrospective study on a group of 419 consecutive patients undergoing total hip replacement for coxarthrosis. The patients were divided into a first group (A) of 198 patients who had surgery with the standard lateral approach, and a second control group (B) of 221 patients who had the same procedure via the minimally invasive direct anterior approach. Assessment of the two groups considered the following perioperative parameters: length of the surgical procedure, intraoperative complications, intra- and postoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, length of stay, and type of discharge.
The two groups were homogeneous when compared in relation to mean age, sex and body weight. The minimally invasive direct anterior approach was performed within an acceptable time (89 ± 19 min vs. 81 ± 15 min) and with modest blood loss (3.1 ± 0.9 g/dL vs. 3,5 ± 1 g/dL). Patients experienced less pain (1.4 ± 1.5 NRS score vs. 2.5 ± 2 NRS score), and PONV affected only 5% versus 10% of cases. Times to discharge were shorter (7 ± 2 days vs. 10 ± 3.5 days), and 58.4% versus 11.6% of patients were discharged to home.
In our study, patients treated with a minimally invasive direct anterior approach had a better perioperative outcome than patients treated with the lateral approach. The longer time of surgery for the minimally invasive direct anterior approach may be attributed to the learning curve. Further studies are necessary to investigate the advantages of a minimally invasive direct anterior approach in terms of clinical results in the short and long run.
鉴于对组织保留手术需求的增加,手术入路是全髋关节置换术的热门话题。本文旨在通过观察围手术期结果,比较微创直接前侧入路和标准外侧入路全髋关节置换术的疗效。
作者对 419 例因髋关节骨关节炎接受全髋关节置换术的连续患者进行了回顾性研究。患者分为第一组(A 组)198 例,采用标准外侧入路手术;第二组为对照组(B 组)221 例,采用微创直接前侧入路。评估两组患者的围手术期参数包括:手术时间、术中并发症、术中及术后失血量、术后疼痛、术后恶心呕吐、住院时间和出院类型。
两组患者的平均年龄、性别和体重比较差异无统计学意义。微创直接前侧入路手术时间可接受(89±19 分钟比 81±15 分钟),失血量适中(3.1±0.9g/dL 比 3.5±1g/dL)。患者疼痛较轻(1.4±1.5NRS 评分比 2.5±2NRS 评分),PONV 仅影响 5%的病例,而 10%的病例。出院时间较短(7±2 天比 10±3.5 天),58.4%的患者出院回家,而 11.6%的患者出院回家。
在我们的研究中,微创直接前侧入路治疗的患者围手术期结果优于外侧入路治疗的患者。微创直接前侧入路手术时间较长可能与学习曲线有关。需要进一步研究来探讨微创直接前侧入路在短期和长期临床结果方面的优势。