Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The ideal approach for a total hip arthroplasty (THA) would be kind to soft tissues, have the lowest complication rates and be easily reproducible. Although there have been several attempts to find the best approach for THA in the last decade, a definitive answer has not been found. We performed a prospective study to compare the direct anterior and posterior approaches for THA in terms of hospital length of stay, functional outcome, pain, implant position, complications and surgical time. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, multicentre clinical study was conducted between February 2011 and July 2013, with an average follow-up of 55 months. Patients undergoing the direct anterior or posterior approach for THA were enrolled. Hospital length of stay, surgical time and complications were documented. The Harris Hip Score and visual analogue scale were used to monitor functional outcome and pain until 5 years postoperatively. Radiologic analysis was used to assess implant position. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (28 undergoing the direct anterior approach, 27 undergoing the posterior approach) were enrolled in this study. Length of stay, functional outcome, pain, implant position and complications were similar for the 2 approaches. There was a trend toward a better functional outcome for patients who underwent the direct anterior approach in the first 3 months postoperatively, with a peak at 4 weeks (Harris Hip Score 76.7 v. 68.7; p = 0.08). Average surgical time for the direct anterior approach was significantly longer (69.9 v. 45.7 min; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The direct anterior approach for THA appears to be a safe and effective option. However, there is no significant difference in hospital length of stay or postoperative recovery between the 2 approaches. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT03673514.

CONTEXTE: L'approche idéale pour l'arthroplastie totale de la hanche (ATH) serait douce pour les tissus mous, aurait le taux de complications le plus bas et serait facilement reproductible. Dans les 10 dernières années, on a tenté à de nombreuses reprises de déterminer quelle est la meilleure approche, sans obtenir de réponse concluante. Nous avons mené une étude prospective visant à comparer la durée du séjour à l'hôpital, les résultats fonctionnels, la douleur, la position de l'implant, les complications et le temps de chirurgie associés aux approches antérieure directe et postérieure pour l'ATH. MÉTHODES: Un essai clinique randomisé prospectif multicentrique a été mené auprès de patients ayant subi une ATH par voie antérieure directe ou postérieure entre février 2011 et juillet 2013; le suivi moyen était de 55 mois. La durée du séjour à l'hôpital, le temps de chirurgie et les complications ont été notés. Le score de Harris pour la hanche et l'échelle analogique visuelle ont servi au suivi des résultats fonctionnels et de la douleur dans les 5 ans suivant l'opération. Des clichés radiologiques ont été analysés pour évaluer la position de l'implant. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 55 patients ont été recrutés (28 ayant subi une ATH par voie antérieure directe, et 27, une ATH par voie postérieure). La durée du séjour, les résultats fonctionnels, la douleur, la position de l'implant et les complications étaient sensiblement les mêmes, quelle que soit l'approche utilisée. Dans les 3 premiers mois suivant l'opération, les patients ayant subi une ATH par voie antérieure directe avaient tendance à présenter de meilleurs résultats fonctionnels que les autres, en particulier à la quatrième semaine postopératoire (score de Harris pour la hanche : 76,7 c. 68,7; p = 0,08). Le temps de chirurgie moyen pour l'approche antérieure directe était significativement plus long (69,9 c. 45,7 min; p = 0,002). CONCLUSION: La voie antérieure directe semble être une approche efficace et sûre. Aucune différence significative n'a toutefois été observée entre les 2 approches quant à la durée du séjour à l'hôpital ou au rétablissement postopératoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: ClinicalTrials.gov, no NCT03673514.

Glenoid exposure in shoulder arthroplasty: the role of soft tissue releases.

BACKGROUND: The deltopectoral approach is commonly used in shoulder arthroplasty. Various soft tissue releases can be performed to obtain adequate glenoid exposure, but their effectiveness is not known. The purpose of this study was to (1) quantify the effects of various releases on the amount of glenoid surface area exposure and (2) determine if common soft tissue releases performed about the shoulder significantly improve exposure of the glenoid. METHODS: A standard deltopectoral approach was used on cadaveric shoulders (n=8) in the beach chair position. The releases performed were as follows: long head of biceps, pectoralis major tendon, inferior capsule, and posterior capsule. Following each release, a custom-designed jig was used to mark the exposed glenoid surface. The glenoid was then digitized using a 3D surface scanner to quantify the exposed surface area with each release. RESULTS: The mean glenoid surface area exposure prior to any releases was 57% (SD 8%). Following release of the long head of biceps, exposure increased to 69% (SD 10%). The exposed area was increased to 83% (SD 6%) with release of the pectoralis major, and 93% (SD 2%) with inferior capsule. The entire glenoid was exposed following posterior capsule release. CONCLUSIONS: Release of the long head of biceps, pectoralis major, and inferior and posterior capsule all independently led to significant increases in glenoid surface exposure in the deltopectoral approach. Mean surface area exposed with all 3 releases was 93%. Although posterior capsular release improved exposure, the results of this study suggest that this is rarely necessary.

Severe heterotopic ossification and stiffness after revision knee surgery for a periprosthetic fracture.

Although heterotopic ossification (HO) after total hip arthroplasty has been very well described as a cause of disability, much less was written on clinical dysfunction of HO after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). To the extent of our knowledge, there has been no published case of complete bony ankylosis, secondary to severe generalized HO, after a TKA. We present the case of a 67-year-old female treated successfully, with surgical excision of ossification and TKA revision surgery, using a rotating hinge system.

Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

The early term results of 29 cases of revision total knee arthroplasty using highly porous trabecular metal cone implants for femoral and tibial major bone deficit reconstruction (Anderson Orthopedic Research Institute classification type 2B and 3) have been prospectively analyzed. Indications for revision surgery included: aseptic loosening/wear, staged reimplantation after infection, as well as periprosthetic fracture. At an average follow-up of 33 months (range, 13-73 months) the mean Knee Society Score and functional score statistically improved. Radiological follow-up revealed no evidence of loosening or migration of the constructs. No evidence of complications was noted in correlation with the use of trabecular metal cones. This study supports evidence that trabecular metal cones are an efficient and effective option for dealing with significant bone deficits and obtaining stable biological fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty.