Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted total hip arthroplasty versus lateral approach in Total Hip Replacement. A prospective comparative study.
Hardinge approach
Minimal invasive surgery
Muscle damage
Serum markers
SuperPATH approach
Total hip arthroplasty
Total hip replacement
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
revised:
15
06
2020
accepted:
02
08
2020
entrez:
14
9
2020
pubmed:
15
9
2020
medline:
15
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted total hip arthroplasty (SuperPATH approach) is a relatively new minimal invasive approach which has been associated with encouraging postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the minimal invasive (MIS) SuperPATHapproach with the standard modified Hardinge approach at the base of muscle damage due to serum markers, functional results and other perioperative and postoperative data. Forty eight (48) consecutive patients undergone primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) by the same surgeon (GD), were enrolled in our study. From this study population, the modified Hardinge approach was performed in 23 patients and the SuperPATH approach was performed in 25 patients. Soft tissue impairment was studied based on three representative markers, C-reactive-protein (CRP) and two enzymes, creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). We measured these markers 10 min after surgery, on 1st and 2nd postoperative day. The levels of the perceived pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS) score which was registered 6 h, 12 h, 1 day and 2 days postoperatively. The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was achieved with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4) 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The rest of the collected data included patient's age, gender, body mass index (BMI), other comorbitities, the American Society of Anesthiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, implant positioning through radiographic evaluation, the type of anesthesia, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates. SuperPATH approach was related with statistically considerable lower levels of CRP at 10 min (p = 0,001) and at 24 h (p = 0,047) postoperatively, as well as lower LDH levels in all time points postoperatively. It was also associated with shorter incision length (p < Our study revealed some advantages in favor of the SuperPATH approach comparing with the standard modified Hardinge approach, mainly in terms of less muscle damage and less perceived pain postoperatively. More research is required in order to further elucidate its efficacy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted total hip arthroplasty (SuperPATH approach) is a relatively new minimal invasive approach which has been associated with encouraging postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the minimal invasive (MIS) SuperPATHapproach with the standard modified Hardinge approach at the base of muscle damage due to serum markers, functional results and other perioperative and postoperative data.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Forty eight (48) consecutive patients undergone primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) by the same surgeon (GD), were enrolled in our study. From this study population, the modified Hardinge approach was performed in 23 patients and the SuperPATH approach was performed in 25 patients. Soft tissue impairment was studied based on three representative markers, C-reactive-protein (CRP) and two enzymes, creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). We measured these markers 10 min after surgery, on 1st and 2nd postoperative day. The levels of the perceived pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS) score which was registered 6 h, 12 h, 1 day and 2 days postoperatively. The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was achieved with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4) 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The rest of the collected data included patient's age, gender, body mass index (BMI), other comorbitities, the American Society of Anesthiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, implant positioning through radiographic evaluation, the type of anesthesia, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates.
RESULTS
RESULTS
SuperPATH approach was related with statistically considerable lower levels of CRP at 10 min (p = 0,001) and at 24 h (p = 0,047) postoperatively, as well as lower LDH levels in all time points postoperatively. It was also associated with shorter incision length (p <
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study revealed some advantages in favor of the SuperPATH approach comparing with the standard modified Hardinge approach, mainly in terms of less muscle damage and less perceived pain postoperatively. More research is required in order to further elucidate its efficacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32921949
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.003
pii: S0972-978X(20)30236-1
pmc: PMC7476237
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
406-415Informations de copyright
© 2020 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Int Orthop. 2015 May;39(5):847-51
pubmed: 25398472
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010 Jun;48(6):757-67
pubmed: 20518645
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Feb;28(2):255-267
pubmed: 28956180
Int Orthop. 2017 Nov;41(11):2245-2252
pubmed: 28439629
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Dec;129(12):1633-9
pubmed: 19424709
Injury. 2006 Dec;37 Suppl 5:S17-23
pubmed: 17338907
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):173-84
pubmed: 20559827
Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Sep;6(3):279-84
pubmed: 25177452
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Nov;32(11):3421-3428
pubmed: 28662957
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013 Jul 24;5(3):e19
pubmed: 24191179
J Biol Chem. 2004 Nov 19;279(47):48487-90
pubmed: 15337754
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Aug;3(13):180
pubmed: 26366397
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun;21(4):503-7
pubmed: 16781401
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015 Jan;97(1):11-6
pubmed: 25519259
WMJ. ;115(6):317-21
pubmed: 29094869
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Apr;32(4):756-63
pubmed: 10776894
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Nov;91 Suppl 6:107-20
pubmed: 19884418
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):149-50
pubmed: 21243356
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (1978). 1979 Oct;95(1-2):47-9
pubmed: 526126
Pain. 1985 May;22(1):1-31
pubmed: 4011282
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90 Suppl 4:209-20
pubmed: 18984733
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982;64(1):17-9
pubmed: 7068713
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Dec 31;21(1):2
pubmed: 31892355
Acta Orthop. 2012 Aug;83(4):342-6
pubmed: 22880711
J Orthop Res. 2015 Sep;33(9):1305-10
pubmed: 25877694
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jun;469(6):1554-9
pubmed: 21108028
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Mar;75(2):228-32
pubmed: 8444942
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011 Sep;4(3):146-50
pubmed: 21789576
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jan;89(1):27-32
pubmed: 17200306
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 2:91-7
pubmed: 15691113
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Sep 25;12(1):138
pubmed: 28946892
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1768-77
pubmed: 23021846
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Aug;22(2):168-72
pubmed: 25163948
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Feb;97(1):14-21
pubmed: 21236746
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Feb;14(2):159-64
pubmed: 10065720
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Dec;3(21):335
pubmed: 26734645
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):319-29
pubmed: 20717858
Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7
pubmed: 17605194
J Orthop Surg Res. 2010 Jul 27;5:46
pubmed: 20663200
J Clin Invest. 2003 Jun;111(12):1805-12
pubmed: 12813013
Anesthesiology. 1974 Dec;41(6):609-12
pubmed: 4433062
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:115-24
pubmed: 16330993
Anesthesiology. 1978 Oct;49(4):239-43
pubmed: 697077
Int Orthop. 2016 Oct;40(10):2025-2030
pubmed: 26753844
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Dec;94(50):e2126
pubmed: 26683920
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):200-8
pubmed: 20352383
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Jan 1;31(1):17-24
pubmed: 29798623
Nat Commun. 2016 Feb 03;7:10572
pubmed: 26838040
Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):32-5
pubmed: 25381405
Maturitas. 2013 Jul;75(3):221-6
pubmed: 23693138
Surgery. 1962 Feb;51(2):224-32
pubmed: 21936146
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55
pubmed: 5783851