Tissue-Preserving, Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Superior Capsulotomy

  • S. B. Murphy


Conventional total hip arthroplasty in its many forms has been well established as a reliable procedure with predictable recovery. The high volume of procedures has allowed the incidences of the most common post-operative complications to be determined. Early complications vary widely by surgical approach and method of fixation, but generally include infection, dislocation, abductor morbidity, intra-operative fracture, and, rarely, nerve palsy. Preliminary reports of total hip arthroplasty using minimally invasive techniques have shown a tendency towards higher, rather than lower, complication rates [1, 6, 17, 19, 20]. Reasonable goals for evolving total hip arthroplasty include reducing the incidence of these peri-operative complications while simultaneously accelerating recovery.


Femoral Neck Femoral Head Posterior Capsule Gluteus Medius Surgical Navigation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berry DJ, Berger RA, Callaghan JJ, Dorr LD, Duwelius PJ, Hartzband MA, Lieberman JR, Mears DC. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Development, early results, and a critical analysis. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Association, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, June 14, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A(11): 2235–2246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiGioia AM, Plakseychuk AY, Levisoin TJ, Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18 (2): 123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B. Plakseychuk A et al. Comparison of a mechanicai acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17: 359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M et al. Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperative acetabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop 1998, 355: 8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gore D, Murray P, Sepie S, Gardner G. Anterlateral compared to posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in component positioning, hip strength, and hip motion. Clin Orthop 1982, 165: 180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartzband M. MIS meets CAOS. Pittsburgh, April 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM, Blackwell M, Nikou C. Computer assisted measurement of cup placement in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1998, 354: 70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennon RE, Keggi JM,Wetmore RS,Zatorski LE, Huo MH. and Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg 85-A [Suppl 49] 39–48Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Light TR, Keggi KJ. Anterior approach to hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1980, 152: 255–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrey BF. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1992, 23: 237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy SB, Deshmukh R. Clinical results of computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty. In: Langlotz F, Davies B, and Bauer A (eds) Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. Steinkopff-Verlag, Darmstadt. 2003, pp 250–251Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murphy SB, Deshmukh R. Minimally invasive computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty. In: Langlotz F, Davies B, and Bauer A (eds) Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. Steinkopff-Verlag, Darmstadt. 2003, pp 254–255Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy SB. Minimally-invasive THR using image-guided surgical navigation. The Hip Society, Washington, D.C., 2003Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murphy SB. Alumina Ceramic-CeramicTotal Hip Arthroplasty using computer-assisted surgical navigation and a new minimally invasive techniuque. In: Bioceramics in joint arthroplasty. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, 2004Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts JM, Fu FH, McCain EJ, Ferguson AB. A comparison of posterolateral and anterolateral approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1983, 187: 205Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schinsky MF, Nercessian OA, Arons RR, Macaulay W. Comparison of complications after transtrochanteric and posterolateral approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18 (4): 430–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waldman BJ. Minimally invasive total hip replacement and perioperative management: early experience. J South Orthop Assoc 2002, 11: 213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG, Bowling JW. The early dislocation rate in primary total hip arthroplasty following the posterior approach with posterior soft-tissue repair. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18 (6): 709–713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wenz JF,Gurkan I, Jibodh SR. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a comparative assessment of perioperative outcomes. Orthopedics 2002, 25: 1031–1043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woolson ST. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an incision gt 12 cm in length. The Hip Society. Washington, D.C., September 11th, 2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wright J, Crockett H, Sculco T. Miniincision for total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedic Special Edition 2001, 7: 18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. B. Murphy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations