From the Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA (Mr. Pan, Mr. Mehta, and Dr. Mason), and Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Bone and Joint Institute (Dr. Mason).
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Feb 2;6(2):e21.00050. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00050.
Risks and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) are believed to vary relative to the surgical approach. This study compares the supine anterior-based muscle-sparing (ABMS) approach with its modern-day counterparts.
A retrospective review was done on 550 patients undergoing primary or revision THA from 2016 to 2018. Surgical modalities included direct anterior (DAA), ABMS, posterolateral, and Müller modified Hardinge approaches. Surgical data were collected, and clinical outcomes were measured by the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Modified Harris Hip Score, UCLA, and VR-12 Mental/Physical scores preoperatively and compared clinical outcomes among approaches.
A total of 550 patients were included (447 primaries, 103 revisions). The average age was 64 years (231 men, 319 women). Approaches included 79 DAA (14%), 212 ABMS (39%), 180 modified Müller-Hardinge (33%), and 79 posterolateral (14%). The incidence of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury was more common with the DAA (P = 0.008), but no other clinically significant differences were noted among the groups.
The results of this study showed no clinically notable differences between the supine ABMS and other approaches. The supine ABMS approach is an acceptable approach in modern day THA when used by an experienced surgeon well-versed in the approach.
人们认为全髋关节置换术 (THA) 的风险和结果因手术入路而异。本研究比较了仰卧前基于肌肉保留 (ABMS) 入路及其现代对应方法。
对 2016 年至 2018 年期间接受初次或翻修 THA 的 550 例患者进行了回顾性研究。手术方式包括直接前入路 (DAA)、ABMS、后外侧和 Müller 改良 Hardinge 入路。收集手术数据,并通过髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结果评分、改良 Harris 髋关节评分、UCLA 和 VR-12 心理/身体评分来衡量术前临床结果,并比较不同入路的临床结果。
共纳入 550 例患者(447 例初次,103 例翻修)。平均年龄为 64 岁(231 例男性,319 例女性)。手术方式包括 79 例 DAA(14%)、212 例 ABMS(39%)、180 例改良 Müller-Hardinge(33%)和 79 例后外侧(14%)。DAA 组更常见股外侧皮神经损伤(P = 0.008),但各组之间没有其他明显的临床差异。
本研究结果表明,仰卧 ABMS 与其他入路之间没有明显的临床差异。对于经验丰富且精通该入路的外科医生来说,仰卧 ABMS 入路是现代 THA 的一种可行方法。