Arora Sumit, Thakrar Krunal, Krishna Anant, Garg Rahul, Meena Kailash, Kumar Manoj
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College & Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, 110002, India.
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2024 Feb 6;49:102363. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102363. eCollection 2024 Feb.
Efforts at minimizing the propensity of posterior approach of hip for post-operative dislocation after total hip arthroplasty have been a subject of continual research. We comparatively evaluated the posterior approach to hip and its quadriceps coxae sparing (QCS) modification with regard to joint stability and component placement.Questions/Purposes: (1) Does sparing of Quadriceps Coxae tendons vis a vis their sectioning in posterior approach help in achieving better intraoperative stability? (2) Does sparing of Quadriceps Coxae tendons come in the way of adequate surgical exposure sufficient to place hip components accurately? (3) Does sparing of Quadriceps Coxae tendons result in better early functional outcome?
Seventy-two patients requiring THA were enrolled prospectively and randomized into two groups: group A (posterior approach) and group B quadriceps coxae sparing (QCS) approach. They were compared for intraoperative joint stability, accuracy of component placement, duration of surgery, blood loss, any event of hip dislocation, and functional outcome.
QCS approach resulted in better intraoperative hip stability as the hips tolerated a higher value of 43.5±3.5⁰ mean internal rotation (at 90⁰ of flexion and 20⁰ of adduction) in this group versus a mean value of 33.5±5.5⁰ in posterior approach group (p < 0.01). No significant difference was observed for femoral version, acetabular inclination, and acetabular version in the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and functional outcome at one year (p > 0.05). No event of hip dislocation was observed in QCS approach, whereas, one such event happened in the posterior-approach group.
Preservation of the QC tendons improves the intraoperative stability of THA and they do not cause any hindrance in the exposure required for optimum component placement.
在全髋关节置换术后,努力将髋关节后入路的术后脱位倾向降至最低一直是持续研究的课题。我们比较评估了髋关节后入路及其保留股四头肌(QCS)改良术式在关节稳定性和假体植入方面的情况。
问题/目的:(1)与后入路中切断股四头肌肌腱相比,保留股四头肌肌腱是否有助于实现更好的术中稳定性?(2)保留股四头肌肌腱是否会妨碍获得足够的手术视野以准确植入髋关节假体?(3)保留股四头肌肌腱是否会带来更好的早期功能结果?
前瞻性纳入72例需要进行全髋关节置换的患者,并随机分为两组:A组(后入路)和B组(保留股四头肌QCS入路)。比较两组的术中关节稳定性、假体植入准确性、手术时间、失血量、髋关节脱位事件及功能结果。
QCS入路导致术中髋关节稳定性更好,该组髋关节在90°屈曲和20°内收时平均内旋角度为43.5±3.5°,能耐受更高值,而后入路组的平均值为33.5±5.5°(p<0.01)。两组在股骨颈前倾角、髋臼倾斜度和髋臼前倾角方面无显著差异(p>0.05)。两组在手术时间、术中失血量和一年时的功能结果方面无差异(p>0.05)。QCS入路未观察到髋关节脱位事件,而后入路组发生了1例此类事件。
保留股四头肌肌腱可提高全髋关节置换术的术中稳定性,且不会对最佳假体植入所需的手术视野造成任何阻碍。