The bone & joint journal · 2016
Greater inadvertent muscle damage in direct anterior approach when compared with the direct superior approach for total hip arthroplasty.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amanatullah D F, Masini M A, Roger D J, Pagnano M W
Аннотация
AIMS: We wished to quantify the extent of soft-tissue damage sustained during minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior (DA) and direct superior (DS) approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In eight cadavers, the DA approach was performed on one side, and the DS approach on the other, a single brand of uncemented hip prosthesis was implanted by two surgeons, considered expert in their surgical approaches. Subsequent reflection of the gluteus maximus allowed the extent of muscle and tendon damage to be measured and the percentage damage to each anatomical structure to be calculated.
RESULTS: The DA approach caused substantially greater damage to the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon when compared with the DS approach (t-test, p = 0.049 and 0.003, respectively). The tensor fascia lata and rectus femoris muscles were damaged only in the DA approach. There was no difference in the amount of damage to the gluteus medius muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon, obturator internus tendon, obturator externus tendon or quadratus femoris muscle between approaches. The posterior soft-tissue releases of the DA approach damaged the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon and obturator internus tendon.
CONCLUSION: The DS approach caused less soft-tissue damage than the DA approach. However the clinical relevance is unknown. Further clinical outcome studies, radiographic evaluation of component position, gait analyses and serum biomarker levels are necessary to evaluate and corroborate the safety and efficacy of the DS approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B1036-42.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In eight cadavers, the DA approach was performed on one side, and the DS approach on the other, a single brand of uncemented hip prosthesis was implanted by two surgeons, considered expert in their surgical approaches. Subsequent reflection of the gluteus maximus allowed the extent of muscle and tendon damage to be measured and the percentage damage to each anatomical structure to be calculated.
RESULTS: The DA approach caused substantially greater damage to the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon when compared with the DS approach (t-test, p = 0.049 and 0.003, respectively). The tensor fascia lata and rectus femoris muscles were damaged only in the DA approach. There was no difference in the amount of damage to the gluteus medius muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon, obturator internus tendon, obturator externus tendon or quadratus femoris muscle between approaches. The posterior soft-tissue releases of the DA approach damaged the gluteus minimus muscle and tendon, piriformis tendon and obturator internus tendon.
CONCLUSION: The DS approach caused less soft-tissue damage than the DA approach. However the clinical relevance is unknown. Further clinical outcome studies, radiographic evaluation of component position, gait analyses and serum biomarker levels are necessary to evaluate and corroborate the safety and efficacy of the DS approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B1036-42.