Advertisement

Abstract

This section focuses on the surgical approaches through which the Corail® hip system can be implanted. Implant design features, which make the Corail® hip amenable to a variety of approaches, will also be presented. Various surgical approaches are presented and the technical details of the approaches as well as the associated indications, advantages, and disadvantages are explained. The surgical approach chosen for a patient should allow suffi cient exposure for accurate implant placement, while minimizing soft tissue trauma.

Keywords

Femoral Neck Great Trochanter Anterior Superior Iliac Spine Gluteus Maximus Gluteus Medius 
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_6

References

  1. 1.
    Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty Collaborative (ATHAC) Investigators (2009) Outcomes following the single-incision anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter observational study. Orthop Clin North Am 40(3):329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mast NH, Munoz M, Matta JM (2009) Simultaneous bilateral supine anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of early complications and short-term rehabilitation. Orthop Clin North Am 40(3):351–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matta JM et al (1994) Single incision anterior approach for THA on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 298:89–96Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matta JM, Ferguson TA (2008) THR after acetabular fracture. Orthopaedics 28:959Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yerasimides JG, Matta JM (2005) Primary total hip arthroplasty with a minimally invasive anterior approach. Semin Arthroplasty16(3):186–190Google Scholar
  6. 6.

References

  1. 1.
    Jolles BM, Bogoch ER (2004) Surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty: direct lateral or posterior? J Rheumatol 31(9):1790–1796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwon MS et al (2006) Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:34–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pai VS (1996) Significance of the Trendelenburg test in total hip arthroplasty. Influence of lateral approaches. J Arthro-plasty 11:174–179Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pai VS (1997) A comparison of three lateral approaches in primary total hip replacement. Int Orthop 21(6):393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Gibson A (1950) Posterior exposure of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 32-B:183–186Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ling ZX and Kumar VP (2006) The course of the inferior gluteal nerve in the posterior approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88-B:1580–1583Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer R, Kerschbaumer F, Poisel S et al (1979) The trans-gluteal approach to the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 95:47–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger RA (2003) Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:232–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irving JF (2004) Direct two-incision total hip replacement without fluoroscopy. Orthop Clin North Am 35:173–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kipping R (2006) Der 2-Inzisionen-Zugang zur Implantation einer Hüfttotalendeprothese. Orthop Prax 42:598–603Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rittmeister M, Peters A (2005) Künstlicher Hüftgelenksersatz über eine posterior Mini-Inzision - Ergebnisse in 76 aufein- ander folgenden Fällen. Z Orthop 143:403–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kipping R (2009) The standard implantation of a total hip prosthesis via two incisions. Oper Orthop Traumatol 21(3):335–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Musgrave Park HospitalStockman’s LaneBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations