The minimalinvasive direct anterior approach in aseptic cup revision hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up
- 55 Downloads
The minimally invasive direct anterior approach (DAA) is an established approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The complication rates in hip revision arthroplasty are much higher in comparison with primary THA. A right positioning of the implants and a soft tissue, especially the abductors spearing approach, is important to get good functional results and low complication rates. The aim of this study was to show the clinical and radiological outcome of isolated revision hip arthroplasty of the cup by using the DAA.
Materials and methods
Aseptic cup revisions were carried out in 48 patients using the DAA. A decision to exchange the stem was made intraoperatively in seven cases. Complications, radiological and functional outcome were assessed. All of the data were collected retrospectively. The mean follow-up period was 65 months.
In most of the cases the standard DAA was used. A proximal extension was nescessary in 15 patients (31%). The mean cup inclination angle after revision was 44° (min. 25°, max. 62°). Six implants (12.5%) were located outside of the Lewinnek safe zone. The centers of rotation of the revision implants were a mean of 0.6 cm superior (min. 0, max. 2.2 cm) and 0.5 cm lateral (min. 0.2 cm, max 1.2 cm) in comparison with the center of rotation in the healthy hip on the contralateral side. Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 50 to 91 (P = 0.03). Complications noted consisted of two periprosthetic infections (4.2%), one aseptic cup loosening (2.1%), two hematomas requiring revision (4.2%), and one case each of femoral nerve injury, lower-leg venous thrombosis, and pneumonia. No dislocations were observed and there were no cases of heterotopic ossification based on the Brooker classification. No persistent damage of the nervus cutaneus femoris lateralis was found at the follow-up examinations.
The DAA represents a feasible option in hip revision arthroplasty. Anatomic reconstruction of the cup is reproducibly possible. Good medium-term results can also be achieved. Particularly in relation to dislocation, the complication rates are low. Due to the learning curve, the DAA should only be used in hip revision arthroplasty by those with sufficient experience in primary THA. Adequate data regarding stem revisions through the DAA are not available at the moment.
KeywordsDirect anterior approach Revision hip arthroplasty Minimal invasive arthroplasty Total hip replacement
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 16.DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121:20–32Google Scholar
- 19.Mjaaland KE, Svenningsen S, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Nordstetten L (2017) Implant survival after minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral vs. conventional posterior or direct lateral approach: an analysis of 21,860 total hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2008–2013). J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:840–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kawarai Y, Iida S, Nakamura J, Shinada Y, Suzuki C, Ohtori S (2017) Does the surgical approach influence the implant alignment in total hip arthroplasty? Comparative study between the direct anterior and the anterolateral approaches in the supine position. Int Orthop 41:2487–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Mayr E, Krismer M, Ertl M, Kessler O, Thaler M, Nogler M (2006) Uncompromised quality of the cement mantle in Exeter femoral components implanted through a minimally-invasive direct anterior approach. A prospective, randomised cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(9):1252–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar