Modified micro-superior percutaneously-assisted total hip: early experiences & case reports

  • James Chow
  • Brad Penenberg
  • Stephen Murphy


Because of the extensile nature and familiarity of the standard posterior-lateral approach to the hip, a family of “micro-posterior” approaches has been developed. This family includes the Percutaneously-Assisted Total Hip (PATH) approach, the Supercapsular (SuperCap) approach and a newer hybrid approach, the Supercapsular Percutaneously-Assisted Total Hip (SuperPATH) approach. Such approaches should ideally provide a continuum for the surgeon: from a “micro” (external rotator sparing) posterior approach, to a “mini” (external rotator sacrificing) posterior approach, to a standard posterior approach. This could keep a surgeon within his comfort zone during the learning curve of the procedure, while leaving options for complicated reconstructions for the more practiced micro-posterior surgeons. This paper details one author’s experiences utilizing this combined approach, as well as permutations of this entire micro-posterior family of approaches as applied to more complex hip reconstructions.


SuperPATH PATH SuperCap Micro-superior Hip Total Arthroplasty Minimally-invasive Micro-posterior Micro-invasive Replacement Percutaneous Assisted Direct-posterior Direct 



J. Chow: consultant to Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Smith & Nephew; B. Penenberg: patents and royalties from Wright Medical Technology, Inc.; S. Murphy: Consultant to Ceramtec, GmbH; patents and royalties from Wright Medical Technology, Inc.; holds stock/stock options in Surgical Planning Associates, Inc.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •Jewett BA, Collis DK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):503–7. Recent study citing complications seen with a popular minimally-invasive hip approach. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(1):14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Restrepo C, Mortazavi SM, Brothers J, Parvizi J, Rothman RH. Hip dislocation: are hip precautions necessary in anterior approaches? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):417–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foucher KC, Wimmer MA, Moisio KC, Hildebrand M, Berli MC, Walker MR, et al. Time course and extent of functional recovery during the first postoperative year after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with two different surgical approaches–a randomized controlled trial. J Biomech. 2011;44(3):372–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Oldenrijk J, Hoogland PV, Tuijthof GJ, Corveleijn R, Noordenbos TW, Schafroth MU. Soft tissue damage after minimally invasive THA. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(6):696–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Singer J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty a prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayr E, Nogler M, Benedetti MG, Kessler O, Reinthaler A, Krismer M, et al. A prospective randomized assessment of earlier functional recovery in THA patients treated by minimally invasive direct anterior approach: a gait analysis study. Clin Biomech. 2009;24:812–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parratte S, Pagnano MW. Muscle damage during minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: cadaver-based evidence that it is significant. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:231–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Hozack WL. Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty. Smith-Petersen versus posterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:293–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mardones R, Pagnano MW, Nemanich JP, Trousdale RT. Muscle damage of total hip arthroplasty done with the two-incision and mini-posterior techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:63–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorr LD, Maheshwari AV, Long WT, Wan Z, Sirianni LE. Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89-A:1153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Procyk S. Initial results with a mini-posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2007;31(Suppl):S17–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sculco TP, Boettner F. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the posterior approach. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:205–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Brien DA, Rorabeck CH. The mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inaba Y, Dorr LD, Wan Z, Sirainni L, Boutary M. Operative and patient care techniques for posterior mini-incision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:104–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Mumphreys P, O’Brien S, et al. A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87-A:701–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger RA, Jacobs JJ, Meneghini M, Della Valle C, Paprosky W, Rosenberg A. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;429:239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bertin KC, Rottinger H. Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;429:248–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein WM, Banson JJ, Berland KA, Gordon AC. Minimal-Incision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85-A:33–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:137–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B. Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: A study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;426:164–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin JV, Schurman DJ. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with standard incision or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1353–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JM, Crockett HC, Delgado S, Lyman S, Madsen M, Sculco TP. Mini incision for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled, investigation with 5 year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:538–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ••Murphy SB. Tissue-Preserving, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a superior capsulotomy. In: Hozack W, editor. Minimally invasive total hip and knee arthroplaty. Springer-Verlag; 2004. p. 101–107. Detailed description of the SuperCap technique and clinical rationale. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy SB, Tannast M. Evolution in total hip arthroplasty: computer assisted, minimally invasive techniques combined with alumina ceramic-ceramic bearings. In: D’Antonio J, Dietrich M, editors. Bioceramics in joint arthroplasty. Darmstadt: Steinkopff Verlag; 2005. p. 119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy SB, Ecker TM, Tannast M. THA performed using conventional and navigated tissue-preserving techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:160–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ••Murphy SB, Tannast M. Conventional vs minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study of rehabilitation and complications. Orthopäde. 2006;(35):761-8. This article is in German with an abstract in English. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ••Penenberg BL, Bolling WS, Riley M. Percutaneously assisted total hip arthroplasty (PATH): a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 4):209–20. This paper describes the PATH technique and clinical rationale. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ••Chow J, Kurtz W, Chadha B, Penenberg B, Murphy S. Paper #353: modified superior approach for THA with percutaneous assistance: technique and early results. AAOS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. February 15–19, 2011. This paper outlines the SuperPATH technique step-by-step and provides a detailed analysis of a single surgeon’s experience through the learning curve of the technique. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AZ Center for Bone & Joint DisordersPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.Arthritis and Joint Reconstruction Institute of Los AngelesCenter for Minimally Invasive Hip and Knee SurgeryBeverly HillsUSA
  3. 3.Center for Computer Assisted and Reconstructive SurgeryNew England Baptist HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations