Enhanced recovery after posterior minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with continuous intraarticular anaesthesia
The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible complications specific to the continuous intraarticular anaesthesia (CIA) in a minimally invasive posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty and its possible effects on the recovery, especially on pain and the length of hospitalisation.
Materials and methods
The surgical procedure is first precisely described step by step with numerous per-operating photographs. Particular technical points are detailed. The errors to be avoided are specified. A prospective series of 70 first-line total hip arthroplasties (one half with and one half without CIA) are analysed for the well-known results of total hip arthroplasty but specifically assessing: (a) specific possible complications to the minimally invasive posterior technique with the prolonged local anaesthesia and (b) effects on pain, duration of hospitalisation and satisfaction in patients (questionnaire).
(a) Very low level of immediate post-operative pain was observed in almost all of the patients. (b) Patient satisfaction was high in our series. (c) A repeated education was provided multiple times to avoid specific complications following the absence of pain and consequent inattention.
Discussion and conclusion
The minimally invasive posterior approach with continuous intraarticular anaesthesia is an entirely reliable hip arthroplasty procedure. The patients exhibited a significantly less pain and a fast rate of recovery, but preparatory education must be even more significant.
KeywordsHip Arthroplasty Fast-track recovery Intraarticular anesthesia
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author has a contract as a medical advisor to FH Orthopedics, 68990 Heimsbrunn, France.
- 4.Berger R (2003) Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop 417:232–241Google Scholar
- 9.Chiron P, Laffosse J, Fabié F, Puget J (2005) Prothèse totale de hanche. In: Puget J (ed) Les choix. Elsevier, Paris, pp 269–283Google Scholar
- 15.Chiron P, Laffosse JM, Tricoire JL, Giordano G, Puget J (2006) Etude prospective et comparative entre la voie d’abord postérieure minimale invasive et la voie postérieure standard dans les prothèses totales de hanche. e-mémoires de l’Académie Nationale de. Chirurgie 5(3):06–16Google Scholar
- 18.Rasmussen S, Kramhøft MU, Sperling KP, Pedersen JHL (2004) Increased flexion and reduced hospital stay with continuous intraarticular morphine and ropivacaine after primary total knee replacement: open intervention study of efficacy and safety in 154 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 75(5):606–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Andersen KV, Pfeiffer-Jensen M, Haraldsted V, Søballe K (2007) Reduced hospital stay and narcotic consumption, and improved mobilization with local and intra-articular infiltration after hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial of an intra-articular technique versus epidural infusion in 80 patients. Acta Orthop 78(2):180–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Andersen LJ, Poulsen T, Krogh B, Nielsen T (2007) Postoperative analgesia in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled study on peroperative and postoperative ropivacaine, ketorolac, and adrenaline wound infiltration. Acta Orthop 78(2):187–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Dobrydnjov I, Anderberg C, Olsson C, Shapurova O, Angel K, Bergman S (2011) Intraarticular vs. extraarticular ropivacaine infusion following high-dose local infiltration analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind study. Acta Orthop 82(6):692–698CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar