To date, the literature has not yet revealed superiority of Minimally Invasive (MI) approaches over conventional techniques. We performed a systematic review to determine whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty for (1) clinical and (2) functional outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of level 1 evidence to determine whether (3) minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches for clinical outcomes. All studies comparing MI approaches to conventional approaches were eligible for analysis. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to throughout this study. Registries were searched using the following MeSH terms: ‘minimally invasive’, ‘muscle-sparing’, ‘THA’, ‘THR’, ‘hip arthroplasty’ and ‘hip replacement’. Locations searched included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU clinical trials register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (World Health Organisation). Twenty studies were identified. There were 1,282 MI THAs and 1,351 conventional THAs performed. There was no difference between MI and conventional approaches for all clinical outcomes of relevance including all-cause revision (p=0.959), aseptic revision (p=0.894), instability (p=0.894), infection (p=0.669) and periprosthetic fracture (p=0.940). There was also no difference in functional outcome at early or intermediate follow-up between the two groups (p=0.38). In level I studies exclusively, random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rate of aseptic revision (p=0.461) between both groups. Intermuscular MI approaches are equivalent to conventional THA approaches when considering all-cause revision, aseptic revision, infection, dislocation, fracture rates and functional outcomes. Meta-analysis of level 1 evidence supports this claim.
High complication rates and poor outcomes have been widely reported in patients undergoing revision of large head metal-on-metal arthroplasty. A previous study from our centre showed high rates of dislocation, nerve injury, early cup loosening and pseudotumor recurrence. After noting these issues, we implemented the following changes in surgical protocol in all large head MOM revisions: One: Use of highly porous shells in all cases. Two: Use of largest femoral head possible. Three: Low threshold for use of dual mobility and constrained liners when abductors affected or absent posterior capsule. Four: Use of ceramic head with titanium sleeve in all cases. Five: Partial resection of pseudotumor adjacent to sciatic and femoral nerves. The purpose of the present study is to compare the new surgical protocol above to our previously reported early complications in this group of patients We specifically looked at (1) complications including reoperations, (2) radiologic outcomes, and (3) functional outcomes. Complication rates after (Group 1), and before (Group 2) modified surgical protocol were compared using Chi-square test, assuming statistical significance p < 0 .05. Major complications occurred in 4 (8.3%) of 48 patients who had modified surgical technique, compared to 12 (38%) of 32 revisions prior to modification (p < 0 .05). Two hips of 48 (4.17%) endured dislocations in Group 1, compared to 9 of 32 (28%) in Group 2 (p < 0 .05). Four patients of 48 had repeat revision in Group 1: 2 for recurrence of pseudotumor, 1 for dislocation, and 1 for infection, compared to 6 patients who had 7 repeat revisions of 32 patients in Group 2: 3 for acetabular loosening, 3 for dislocation, and 1 for recurrence of pseudotumor (p=0.1). None of 48 revisions in Group 1 had acetabular loosening, compared to 4 of 32 in Group 2 (p=0.02). Two patients had nerve injury in Group 2, compared to none in Group 1 (p=0.16). The mean WOMAC pain score was 87.1 of 100 and the function score was 88.4 of 100 in Group 1, compared to a mean WOMAC pain score of 78 of 100 (p=0.6) and a function score of 83 of 100 in Group 2 (p=0.8). Modification of the surgical techniques described in the introduction has resulted in a significant decrease in complications in revision of large head MOM total hips. We continue to use this protocol and recommend it for these difficult cases.
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicates
between 0.5% and 1.2% primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and
may have devastating consequences. The traditional assessment of
patients suffering from PJI has involved the serological study of
inflammatory markers and microbiological analysis of samples obtained
from the joint space. Treatment has involved debridement and revision
arthroplasty performed in either one or two stages. We present an update on the burden of PJI, strategies for its
diagnosis and treatment, the challenge of resistant organisms and
the need for definitive evidence to guide the treatment of PJI after
THA. Cite this article:
There is a postulated association between increased serum metal ions and pseudotumour formation in patients with metal-on-metal hip replacements. The primary aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of pseudotumour in 31 asymptomatic patients with a large femoral head (LFH) metal-on-metal hip implant. This was compared to the prevalence of pseudotumour in 20 matched asymptomatic patients with a hip resurfacing (HRA) and 24 matched asymptomatic patients with a standard metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) total hip. A secondary objective was to assess possible correlation between increased serum metal ions and pseudotumour formation Ultrasound examination of the three groups was performed at a minimum follow up of two years. Serum metal ions were measured in the metal-on-metal LFH and HRA groups at a minimum of two years.Purpose
Method
Dislocation after revision total hip is a common complication. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a large femoral head (36/40mm) would result in a decreased dislocation rate compared to a standard head (32mm). A randomized clinical trial was undertaken to assess the effect of large femoral heads on dislocation after revision total hip. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty at seven centers were randomized to 32mm head or 36/40mm head. Patients were stratified according to surgeon. Primary endpoint was dislocation. Rates were compared with Fishers exact test. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life: WOMAC, SF-36 and satisfaction. One hundred eighty four patients were randomized: 92 in the 32mm head group and 92 in the large head group. Baseline demographics were similar in the two groups. Patients were followed from two to five years postoperativelyPurpose
Method
The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. A prospective randomized control trial was designed and conducted to compare the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Contemporary methods for economic evaluation were used to ascertain direct and indirect costs (in Canadian dollars) along with clinical effectiveness outcomes (SF6D and Pat5D utility measures). University and hospital ethics was obtained and patients were recruited and consented to participate in the RCT resulting in the assignment of 130 patients MIS hip arthroplasty procedures. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidity, quality of life, and utility were obtained for all patients. In-hospital costing data was obtained including operating room and patient room costs as well as medication, rehab and complications. Post-discharge costs were calculated from direct and indirect costs of medication, rehab, medical costs and complications until one year post-operatively. Clinical effectiveness measures were administered at intervals until one year post-operatively.Purpose
Method
