The anterior-based muscle-sparing approach to the hip: the “other” anterior approach to the hip
- 214 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety, efficacy, and learning curves of anterior-based muscle-sparing total hip arthroplasty (ABMS-THA) in the supine position. Furthermore, early functional outcome was evaluated and compared to direct anterior approach (DAA) by measuring surface electromyography (sEMG).
We present a prospective cohort study of 343 hips. The safety and learning curve were assessed by recording operative time and peri-operative adverse events. For assessment of efficacy, functional and radiological outcomes were evaluated. A selected group of 32 patients have been studied by sEMG and compared to a matched group of 32 patients who received a THA using DAA approach.
There was one dislocation (0.3%); two (0.6%) patients had an intra-operative fractures of the greater trochanter; two patients (0.6%) experienced a self-limited femoral nerve palsy. Physical therapy milestones for hospital discharge were reached on an average of 1.7 days. sEMG showed that ABMS and DAA have a similar muscle recruitment pattern and functional recovery after THA. One patient was revised for infection, 16 were lost, and 326 hips were available with a median follow-up of 42 months (range 24–60). The mean Harris Hip Score (HSS) increased from 44.3 to 91.9. Ninety-six percent of the hips had a leg length discrepancy (LLD) < 5 mm. There were no radiological signs of mechanical loosening or osteolysis.
The ABMS approach in the supine position is clinically effective and safe; special advantages include a very low dislocation rate and a great control of LLD.
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplasty Anterior based muscle sparing approach Direct anterior approach
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A (2017) Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 41:2245–2252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Alecci V, Valente M, Crucil M, Minerva M, Pellegrino CM, Sabbadini DD (2011) Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol 12(3):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-011-0144-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Radoicic D, Zec V, Elassuity WI, Azab MA (2018) Patient’s perspective on direct anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4002-z
- 9.Homma Y, Baba T, Kobayashi H, Desroches A, Ozaki Y, Ochi H, Matsumoto M, Yuasa T, Kaneko K (2016) Safety in early experience with a direct anterior approach using fluoroscopic guidance with manual leg control for primary total hip arthroplasty: a consecutive one hundred and twenty case series. Int Orthop 40:2487–2494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3159-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kelley SS, Seyler TM, Hallows RK (2015) Total hip replacement: anterior-based, muscle-sparing approach without use of a fracture table. In: Lieberman J, Berry D (eds) AAOS Advanced Reconstruction Hip 2, Rosemont, pp 186–193Google Scholar
- 16.Cram JR, Kasman GS, Holtz J (1998) Electrode placements. In: Gaithersburg (ed) Introduction to surface electromyography. Aspen Publishers, New York, p 237Google Scholar
- 18.Basmajian J, De Luca C (1985) Muscles alive. Their functions revealed by electromyography. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kendall F, McCreary E, Provance P (1993) Muscles. Testing and function. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 22.Delanois RE, Sultan AA, Albayar AA, Khlopas A, Gwam CU, Sodhi N, Lamaj S, Newman JM, Mont MA (2017) The Röttinger approach for total hip arthroplasty: technique, comparison to the direct lateral approach and review of literature. Ann Transl Med 5(Suppl 3):S31. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2017.11.21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.de Jong L, Klem TMAL, Kuijper TM, Roukema GR (2018) The minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the traditional anterolateral approach (Watson-Jones) for hip hemiarthroplasty after a femoral neck fracture: an analysis of clinical outcomes. Int Orthop 42:1943–1948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3756-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Yukizawa Y, Ishida T, Iwamoto N, Saito T (2011) Little clinical advantage of modified Watson-Jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26(7):1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Muller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C (2011) Randomized controlled trial of abductor muscle damage in relation to the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement: minimally invasive anterolateral versus modified direct lateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kawarai Y, Iida S, Nakamura J, Shinada Y, Suzuki C, Ohtori S (2017) Does the surgical approach influence the implant alignment in total hip arthroplasty? Comparative study between the direct anterior and the anterolateral approaches in the supine position. Int Orthop 41:2487–2493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3521-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar