Until today it is unknown whether preservation of the joint capsule positively affects patient reported outcome (PROs) in DAA-THA. A recent RCT found no clinical difference at 1 year. Since 2015 we preserve the capsule suture it at the end. We here evaluate whether this change had any effect on PROs and revisions, 2 years post-operatively. Two subsequent cohorts operated by the senior author were compared. The capsule was resected in the first cohort (January 2012 – December 2014) and preserved in the second cohort (July 2015 – December 2017). No other technical changes have been introduced between the two cohorts. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and surgical data were collected from our clinical information system. 2-years PROs questionnaires (OHS, COMI Hip) were obtained. Data was analyzed with generalized multiple regression analysis. 430 and 450 patients were included in the resected and preserved cohorts, respectively. Demographics, CCI surgical time and length of stay were equal in both groups. Blood loss was less in the preserved cohort (p<.05). Four patients had a revision (1 vs 3, n.s.). Once corrected for demographics, capsule preservation had significant worse PROs: +0.24 COMI (p<.001) and −1.6 OHS points (p<.05), however, effects were much smaller than the minimal clinically important difference (0.95 and 5 respectively). The date of surgery (i.e. surgeon's age) was not a significant factor. In this large retrospective study, we observed statistically significant, but probably clinically not relevant, worse PROs with capsule preservation. It might be speculated that the not resected hypertrophied capsule could have caused this difference.
The classical longitudinal incision used for the direct anterior approach (DAA) does not follow the relaxation tension lines of the skin and can lead to impaired wound healing and poor scar cosmesis. The purpose of this study was to determine patient functional and radiographic outcomes of a modified skin crease “bikini” incision used for the DAA in THR. 964 patients (51% female; 59% longitudinal, 41% bikini) completed 2 to 4 years after surgery a follow-up questionnaire including the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the University of North Carolina 4P scar scale (UNC4P), and two items for assessing aesthetic appearance and symptoms of numbness. Implant position, rates of radiographic heterotopic ossification and required revision were assessed. UNC4P total (p<0.001) and OHS (p=0.013) scores were better in the bikini compared the longitudinal group. The proportion of aesthetically very satisfied patients was higher (p<0.001) in the bikini group. The proportion of patients reporting numbness in the scar was higher (p<0.001) in the longitudinal (14.5% versus 7.5%, respectively). Radiographic cup abduction angles, stem position and ectopic ossification rates did not differ between the groups. No differences in the revision rates of both groups being 2.1% in the longitudinal and 1.5% in the Bikini group. Although differences were not huge, Bikini incision resulted in better patient-related outcomes and satisfaction related to the scar. Our study showed that a short oblique “bikini” skin crease incision for the DAA can be performed safely without compromising implant positioning or increasing symptoms suggesting lateral femoral cutaneous nerve dysesthesia. As it is less extensile it should be used after having gained significant experience with the classic longitudinal incision.
The risk that hip preserving surgery may negatively influence the performance and outcome of subsequent total hip replacement (THR) remains a concern. The aim of this study was to identify any negative impact of previous hip arthroscopy on THR. Out of 1271 consecutive patients who underwent primary THR between 2005 and 2009, eighteen had previously undergone ipsilateral hip arthroscopy. This study group (STG) was compared with two control groups (CG: same approach, identical implants; MCG: paired group matched for age, BMI and Charnley categories). Operative time, blood loss, evidence of heterotopic bone and implant loosening at follow-up were compared between the SG and the MCG. Follow-up WOMAC were compared between the three groups. Blood loss was not found to be significantly different between the SG and MCG. The operative time was significantly less (p>0.001) in the SG. There was no significant difference in follow-up WOMAC between the groups. No implant related complications were noted on follow-up radiographs. Two minor complications were documented for the SG and three for the MCG. We have found no evidence that previous hip arthroscopy negatively influences the performance or short-term outcome of THR.
