Delanois Ronald E, Sultan Assem A, Albayar Ahmed A, Khlopas Anton, Gwam Chukwuweike U, Sodhi Nipun, Lamaj Suela, Newman Jared M, Mont Michael A
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Dec;5(Suppl 3):S31. doi: 10.21037/atm.2017.11.21.
Multiple approaches to the hip joint have been developed utilizing various intervals and/or intermuscular planes when performing a total hip arthroplasty (THA), each proposing certain advantages. Of these, the Röttinger approach (modified anterolateral or Watson-Jones) is potentially muscle-sparing. Multiple studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes with this approach. However, others showed more complications with a slow learning curve. Due to the paucity of evidence we conducted this study to: (I) present our operative experience and technique of the Röttinger approach; (II) compare short-term complications and operative room (OR) times of this approach to the direct lateral; and (III) review the available literature.
This was a review of a longitudinally maintained single-surgeon database of patients who underwent primary THA using either the Röttinger or direct lateral approach. A total of 100 consecutive patients (100 hips) who underwent primary unilateral THA using the Röttinger approach between April 1, 2012 and April 30, 2015 were identified. These patients were compared to another cohort of 147 consecutive patients (147 hips) who underwent the procedure using the direct lateral approach (of Hardinge). The operative technique for the Röttinger approach involves accessing the hip joint through muscle-sparing technique between the tensor fascia lata and gluteus medius muscles. We evaluated and compared the short-term complications and the mean operative times for each cohort. In addition, we performed a literature search on the clinical studies that reported on the Röttinger approach using the following databases; PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Host, and SCOPUS. Studies published between January 1 of 2000 and September 1 of 2017 were reviewed. We included only studies that compared this approach to other standard approaches and excluded single-cohort case series, case reports, cadaveric studies, and studies not in English language.
At mean follow-up time of 12 weeks (range, 6 to 24 weeks), there were two patients in the Röttinger cohort who experienced lateral femoral cutaneous nerve palsies (2%), which were self-limited and resolved at 6 and 12 weeks. In the direct lateral cohort, there was one hip dislocation (2%) at 6 weeks post-operatively, which was successfully managed by a closed reduction. In patients who received the Röttinger approach, mean OR time was 130 minutes (range, 74 to 202 minutes), compared to the direct lateral cohort mean of 111 minutes (range, 71 to 222 minutes). Our literature analysis covered 2,252 patients who received the Röttinger approach 19,941 patients who underwent variety of other standard approaches including anterior, direct lateral, and posterior. At final follow up (range, 6 to 52 months), patients who underwent the Röttinger approach demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and complications to patients who underwent primary THA using other approaches.
In this analysis of a single-surgeon experience of the Röttinger approach compared to the direct lateral, we presented our experience with the technique and demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this relatively novel approach. Our study results demonstrated that patients who underwent this approach had similar short-term complications and OR times to those who underwent the direct lateral approach. Additionally, our findings agree with previous comparative studies that demonstrated similar outcomes of this approach. Therefore, it can be used as an alternative for primary THA.
在进行全髋关节置换术(THA)时,已经开发出多种进入髋关节的方法,这些方法利用了不同的间隙和/或肌间平面,每种方法都有一定的优势。其中,Röttinger入路(改良前外侧或Watson-Jones入路)可能具有肌肉保留的特点。多项研究表明该入路有良好的效果。然而,其他研究显示该入路并发症更多,学习曲线较缓。由于证据不足,我们开展了本研究,目的如下:(I)介绍我们采用Röttinger入路的手术经验和技术;(II)比较该入路与直接外侧入路的短期并发症和手术室(OR)时间;(III)回顾现有文献。
这是一项对纵向维护的单术者数据库的回顾性研究,该数据库包含接受Röttinger或直接外侧入路进行初次THA的患者。确定了2012年4月1日至2015年4月30日期间连续100例采用Röttinger入路进行初次单侧THA的患者(100髋)。将这些患者与另一组连续147例采用直接外侧(Hardinge)入路进行该手术的患者(147髋)进行比较。Röttinger入路的手术技术包括通过阔筋膜张肌和臀中肌之间的肌肉保留技术进入髋关节。我们评估并比较了每组的短期并发症和平均手术时间。此外,我们使用以下数据库对报道Röttinger入路的临床研究进行了文献检索:PubMed、EMBASE、EBSCO Host和SCOPUS。对2000年1月1日至2017年9月1日发表的研究进行了综述。我们仅纳入了将该入路与其他标准入路进行比较的研究,排除了单组病例系列、病例报告、尸体研究以及非英文研究。
在平均随访时间12周(范围6至24周)时,Röttinger组有2例患者出现股外侧皮神经麻痹(2%),均为自限性,分别在6周和12周时恢复。在直接外侧组,术后6周有1例髋关节脱位(2%),通过闭合复位成功处理。接受Röttinger入路的患者,平均OR时间为130分钟(范围74至202分钟),而直接外侧组的平均OR时间为111分钟(范围71至222分钟)。我们的文献分析涵盖了2252例接受Röttinger入路的患者以及19941例接受包括前侧、直接外侧和后侧等各种其他标准入路的患者。在最终随访(范围6至52个月)时,接受Röttinger入路的患者与采用其他入路进行初次THA的患者相比,临床结果和并发症相当。
在本项对Röttinger入路与直接外侧入路的单术者经验分析中,我们介绍了该技术的经验,并证明了这种相对新颖的入路的安全性和可行性。我们的研究结果表明,接受该入路的患者与接受直接外侧入路的患者短期并发症和OR时间相似。此外,我们的研究结果与先前的比较研究一致,这些研究表明该入路有相似的结果。因此,它可作为初次THA的一种替代方法。