Advertisement

The Medial Approach to the Hip Joint for Implantation of Prostheses

  • W. Thomas
  • L. Lucente
  • P. Benecke
  • C. L. Busch
  • H. Grundei
Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads

Summary

Having first tested the clinical applicability of a medial approach to the hip joint in an anatomical study on fresh, non-formalinized cadavers, since 2002 we have been using this route in an ever-increasing proportion of our patients. After temporary division of the tendon of the adductor longus muscle, the medial approach affords direct access to the joint and yields an excellent overview of the acetabular and femoral parts of the implantation site without endangering any important anatomical structures. The operation can be performed using standard instruments. The operating time is no longer than with the conventional methods, and blood loss is low. The abductor apparatus (gluteal muscles and fascia lata) remains intact, enabling rapid rehabilitation with stable gait and no risk of dislocation. The patient can lie on the affected side. The inconspicuous nature of the scar is greatly appreciated.

Keywords

Femoral Neck Femoral Head Medial Approach Femoral Circumflex Artery Cementless Fixation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61: 15–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossman P, Braun M, Becker W (1994) DeLuxationen nach Hüft-TEP-Implantationen. Abhängigkeit vom operativen Zugang und anderen Faktoren. Z Orthop 132: 521–526Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohn D, Rühman O, Wirt CJ (1997) DeDie Verrenkung der Hüfttotalendoprothese unter besonderer Beachtung verschiedener Zugangswege. Z Orthop 135: 40–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ludloff K (1908) DeZur blutigen Einrenkung der angeborenen Hüftluxation. Z Orthop Chir 22: 272Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ludloff K (1913) The open reduction of the congenital hip dislocation by an anterior incision. Am J Orthop Surg 10: 438Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ludloff K (1914) Die Erfahrungen bei der blutigen Reposition der angeborenen Hüftluxation mit einem vorderen Schnitt. Zentralbl Chir 41: 156Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH et al. (1998) A modified direct lateral approach in total hip arhroplasty:a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 13: 737–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Otto S, Gabel M, Trost E et al. (2000) Wird die Häufigkeit von Nervenläsionen nach totalendoprothetischem Hüftgelenkersatz unterschätzt? Orthop Prax 36: 696–699Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roberts JM, Fu FH, McClain EJ et al. (1984) A comparison of the posterolateral and anterolateral approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 187: 205–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas W, Benecke P (2004) DeDer mediale Zugang zum Hüftgelenk zur Implantation von Endoprothesen. Operat Orthop Traumatol 16: 288–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vicar AJ, Coleman CR (1984) A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 188: 151–159Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    White RE Jr, Forness TJ, Allman JK et al. (2001) Effect of posterior capsular repair on early dislocation in primary total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 393: 163–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Woolson ST, Rahimtoola ZO (1999) Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 14: 662–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Thomas
    • 1
  • L. Lucente
    • 1
  • P. Benecke
    • 2
  • C. L. Busch
    • 3
  • H. Grundei
    • 4
  1. 1.Clinica QuisisanaRomaItaly
  2. 2.Chirurgische AbteilungKreiskrankenhaus RatzeburgGermany
  3. 3.Anatomisches Institut der Medizinischen Universität zu LübeckGermany
  4. 4.Fa. Eska ImplantsLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations