The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:50-73.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01531
© 2009 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Slower Recovery After Two-Incision Than Mini-Posterior-Incision Total Hip ArthroplastySurgical Technique
Mark W. Pagnano, MD1,
Robert T. Trousdale, MD1,
R. Michael Meneghini, MD2 and
Arlen D. Hanssen, MD1
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W.,
Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for M.W. Pagnano:
pagnano.mark{at}mayo.edu
2 New England Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut Health
Center, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030
Investigation performed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
The original scientific article in which the surgical technique was
presented was published in JBJS Vol. 90-A, pp. 1000-6, May 2008
DISCLOSURE: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in
support of their research for or preparation of this work. One or more of the
authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, received, in any one
year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or
agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer).
BACKGROUND: It has been claimed that the two-incision total hip
arthroplasty technique provides quicker recovery than other methods do. To
date, however, there have been no studies that have directly compared the
two-incision technique with another method in similar groups of patients
managed with the same advanced anesthetic and rehabilitation protocol. We
posed the hypothesis that patients managed with two-incision total hip
arthroplasty would recover faster than those managed with
mini-posterior-incision total hip arthroplasty and designed a randomized
controlled trial specifically (1) to determine if patients recovered faster
after two-incision total hip arthroplasty than after mini-posterior-incision
total hip arthroplasty as measured on the basis of the attainment of
functional milestones that reflect activities of daily living, (2) to
determine if the general health outcome after two-incision total hip
arthroplasty was better than that after mini-posterior-incision total hip
arthroplasty as measured with Short Form-12 (SF-12) scores, and (3) to
evaluate the surgical complexity of the two procedures on the basis of the
operative time and the prevalence of early complications.
METHODS: Between November 2004 and January 2006, seventy-two
patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were randomized to two treatment
groups: one group was managed with the two-incision technique, and the other
group was managed with the mini-posterior-incision technique. The two-incision
group comprised thirty-six patients (twenty men and sixteen women) with a mean
age of sixty-seven years and a mean body mass index of 28.7. The
mini-posterior-incision group comprised thirty-six patients (twenty men and
sixteen women) with a mean age of sixty-six years and a mean body mass index
of 30.2. All patients received the same design of uncemented acetabular and
femoral components and were managed with the same comprehensive perioperative
pain management and rapid rehabilitation protocol. Operative times and
complications were recorded. At two months and one year, all patients were
assessed with regard to functional outcome and general health outcome.
RESULTS: The patients in the two-incision group recovered more
slowly than did those in the mini-posterior-incision group as measured on the
basis of the mean time to discontinue a walker or crutches, to discontinue all
walking aids, and to return to normal daily activities. The clinical outcome
as measured on the basis of the SF-12 scores was similar at both two months
and one year postoperatively. The two-incision total hip arthroplasty was a
more complex surgical procedure, with a mean operative time that was
twenty-four minutes longer; however, the rate of complications (2.8%; one of
thirty-six) was the same in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our hypothesis that the two-incision technique for
total hip arthroplasty would substantially improve the short-term recovery
after total hip arthroplasty compared with the mini-posterior-incision
technique was not proved; instead, the patients managed with the
mini-posterior-incision technique had the quicker recovery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions
to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Facebook Technorati Twitter What's this?
|