The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:701-710.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02645
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2005
Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 14: Summer 2005
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow [Related Editorial]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ogonda, L.
Right arrow Articles by Beverland, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ogonda, L.
Right arrow Articles by Beverland, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A Minimal-Incision Technique in Total Hip Arthroplasty Does Not Improve Early Postoperative Outcomes

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Luke Ogonda, MRCS1, Roger Wilson, MRCS1, Pooler Archbold, MRCS2, Marie Lawlor, BSc(Hons), MCSP1, Patricia Humphreys, BSc(Hons), MCSP1, Seamus O'Brien, PhD1 and David Beverland, MD, FRCS1

1 Orthopaedic Outcomes Unit (L.O., R.W., S.O'B., and D.B.) and Physiotherapy Department (M.L. and P.H.), Musgrave Park Hospital, Stockmans Lane, Belfast BT9 7JB, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. E-mail address for L. Ogonda: luke.ogonda{at}greenpark.n-i.nhs.uk
2 Trauma Unit, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

Investigation performed at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from DePuy International. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty has stirred substantial controversy with regard to whether it provides superior outcomes compared with total hip arthroplasty performed through longer incisions. The orthopaedic literature is deficient in well-designed scientific studies to support the clinical superiority of this approach. The objective of this study was to compare the results of a single mini-incision approach with those of a standard-incision total hip arthroplasty in the early postoperative period.

Methods: Two hundred and nineteen patients (219 hips) admitted for unilateral total hip arthroplasty between December 2003 and June 2004 were randomized to undergo surgery through a short incision of ≤10 cm or a standard incision of 16 cm. All patients were blinded to the size of the incision for the duration of the hospital stay. The anesthetic, analgesic, and postoperative physiotherapy protocols were standardized, with the staff also blinded to the technique used. A single surgeon, who had performed more than 300 short-incision hip replacements prior to the start of this study and who performs an average of 415 primary total hip replacements a year, performed all procedures through a single-incision posterior approach using a cementless cup and cemented stem.

Results: The two groups were matched for age, grade according to the system of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and body mass index. No significant difference was detected with respect to postoperative hematocrit, blood transfusion requirements, pain scores, or analgesic use. We found no difference in early walking ability or length of hospital stay and no difference in component placement, cement-mantle quality, or functional outcome scores at six weeks. The patient variables significantly associated with a probability of early discharge independent of incision length were patient age and preoperative hemoglobin levels (p < 0.05). The surgical scars contracted significantly over six weeks (p < 0.05) but by a similar proportion of 11% to 12% in both groups.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty performed through a single-incision posterior approach by a high-volume hip surgeon with extensive experience in less invasive approaches to the hip is safe and reproducible. However, it offers no significant benefit in the early postoperative period compared with a standard incision of 16 cm. As it is not known whether lower-volume and less-experienced surgeons can achieve similar results, the mini-incision technique merits further study before wide dissemination and implementation of this family of surgical approaches can be recommended.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
N. N. Mahomed, A. M. Davis, G. Hawker, E. Badley, J. R. Davey, K. A. Syed, P. C. Coyte, R. Gandhi, and J. G. Wright
Inpatient Compared with Home-Based Rehabilitation Following Primary Unilateral Total Hip or Knee Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2008; 90(8): 1673 - 1680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
T. P. Vail and J. J. Callaghan
Minimal Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., December 1, 2007; 15(12): 707 - 715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br Med BullHome page
A. Mahmood, M. S. Zafar, I. Majid, N. Maffulli, and J. Thompson
Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: a quantitative review of the literature
Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2007; 84(1): 37 - 48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
A. E. Pour, J. Parvizi, P. F. Sharkey, W. J. Hozack, and R. H. Rothman
Minimally Invasive Hip Arthroplasty: What Role Does Patient Preconditioning Play?
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2007; 89(9): 1920 - 1927.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
L. D. Dorr, A. V. Maheshwari, W. T. Long, Z. Wan, and L. E. Sirianni
Early Pain Relief and Function After Posterior Minimally Invasive and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2007; 89(6): 1153 - 1160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
I. D. Learmonth
Total Hip Replacement and the Law of Diminishing Returns
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2006; 88(7): 1664 - 1673.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
G. Holt, K. Wheelan, and A. Gregori
The Ethical Implications of Recent Innovations in Knee Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2006; 88(1): 226 - 229.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. H. Huo and N. F. Gilbert
What's New in Hip Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2005; 87(9): 2133 - 2146.
[Full Text] [PDF]