medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2019, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2019; 33 (6)

Patient satisfaction of primary hip replacement with anterior, lateral and posterior approach

Strassburger-Weidmann J, Vélez-de Lachica JC

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 395-399
PDF size: 156.70 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Indroduction: Today, there is insufficient evidence, that determines the best option of the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement. The objective of this study is to compare patient satisfaction results with the HOOS scale between anterior, lateral and posterior surgical access in patients treated with primary hip joint replacement. Material and methods: Satisfaction results were compared with the HOOS scale between the surgical approach anterior, lateral and posterior at 48-hour, monthly, and three-month; the ANOVA statistical test and a Tukey post-hoc test were applied to the results obtained. Results: A higher score on the HOOS scale was obtained with the anterior approach compared to the lateral and posterior. At 48 hour, per month and three months after surgery, with a p-value of 0.012 at 48 hours, 0.014 per month and from 0.047 to three months. Conclusions: It was concluded, that in our study group, there was greater satisfaction of the post-operative patients of primary hip replacement with Anterior approach compared to the lateral and posterior approaches, however this difference decreases over the length of the time, reaching similar satisfaction results with all three approaches at three months.


REFERENCES

  1. Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications following the posterior and lateral surgical approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97(1): 11-6.

  2. Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015; 58(2): 128-39.

  3. Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg. 1982; 64(1): 17-9.

  4. Amlie E, Havelin L, Furnes O, Baste V, Nordsletten L, Hovik O, Dimmen S. Worse patient-reported outcome after lateral approach tan after anterior and posterolateral approach in primary hip arthroplasty, A croos-sectional questionnaire study of 1,476 patients 1-3 years after surgery. Acta Orthop. 2014; 85(5): 463-9.

  5. De Geest T, Fennema P, Lenaerts G, De Loore G. Adverse effects associated with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135(8): 1183-92.

  6. Post Z, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014; 22(9): 595-603.

  7. York P, Smarck C, Judet T. Total hip arthroplasty via anterior approach: tips and tricks for primary and revision surgery. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(10): 2041-8.

  8. Grob K, Manestar M, Ackland T. Potential risk to the superior gluteal nerve during the anterior approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(17): 1426-31.

  9. Lee G, Marconi D. Complications following direct anterior hip procedures: costs to both patient and surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30 (9 Suppl.): 98-101.

  10. Rudin D, Manestar M, Ullrich O. The anatomical course of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with special attention to the anterior approach to the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98(7): 561-7.

  11. Stone AH, Sibia US, Atkinson R. Evaluation of the learning curve when transitioning from posterolateral to direct anterior hip arthroplasty: a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(8): 2530-4.

  12. Malek I, Royce G, Bhatti S. A comparison between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty. The role of an enhanced recovery pathway. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B: 754-60.

  13. Graves S, Dropkin B, Keeney B. Does surgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 971-81.

  14. Peters R, Beers L, Steenbergen L. Similar superior patient-reported outcome measures for anterior and posteroateral approaches after total hip arthroplasty. Postoperative patient-reported outcome measure improvement after 3 months in 12,774 primary total hip arthroplasties using the anterior, anterolateral, straight lateral, or posterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(6): 1786-93.

  15. Poehling K, Kamath A, Taunton M. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 623-31.

  16. Rodriguez J, Deshmukh A, Rathod P. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472: 455-63.

  17. Cheng TE, Wallis JA, Taylor NF, Holden CT, Marks P, Smith CL, et al. A Prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty - comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(3): 883-90.

  18. Yue C, Kang P, Pei F. Comparison of direct anterior and lateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94(50): e2126.

  19. Meermans G, Konan S, Volpin A. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. A systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 732-40.

  20. https://www.aaos.org/Quality/Performance_Measures/Patient_Reported_Outcome_Measures/?ssopc=1.

  21. Kyte DG, Calvert M, Van der Wees PJ. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015; 101: 119-25.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com