Cargando…

Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach

OBJECTIVE: The advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thaler, Martin, Corten, Kristoff, Nogler, Michael, Holzapfel, Boris Michael, Moskal, Joseph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Medizin 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9197934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35641790
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00064-022-00768-5
_version_ 1784727521836662784
author Thaler, Martin
Corten, Kristoff
Nogler, Michael
Holzapfel, Boris Michael
Moskal, Joseph
author_facet Thaler, Martin
Corten, Kristoff
Nogler, Michael
Holzapfel, Boris Michael
Moskal, Joseph
author_sort Thaler, Martin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years, and the number of surgeons using the DAA is steadily increasing. Thus, the question arises whether femoral revisions are possible through the same interval. INDICATIONS: Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, malalignment, periprosthetic joint infection or periprosthetic femoral fracture. CONTRAINDICATIONS: A draining sinus from another approach. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The incision for the primary DAA can be extended distally and proximally. If necessary, two releases can be performed to allow better exposure of the proximal femur. The DAA interval can be extended to the level of the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in order to perform a tensor release. If needed, a release of the external rotators can be performed in addition. If a component cannot be explanted endofemorally, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy or an extended trochanteric osteotomy has to be performed, the skin incision needs to be extended distally to maintain access to the femoral diaphysis. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Depending on the indication for the femoral revision, ranging from partial weight bearing in cases of periprosthetic fractures to full weight bearing in cases of aseptic loosening. RESULTS: In all, 50 femoral revisions with a mean age of 65.7 years and a mean follow-up of 2.1 years were investigated. The femoral revision was endofemoral in 41 cases, while a transfemoral approach with a lazy‑S extension was performed in 9 patients. The overall complication rate was 12% (6 complications); 3 patients or 6% of the included patients required reoperations. None of the implanted stems showed a varus or valgus position. There were no cases of mechanical loosening, stem fracture or subsidence. Median WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score before surgery improved significantly from preoperative (52.5) to postoperative (27.2).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9197934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Medizin
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91979342022-06-16 Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach Thaler, Martin Corten, Kristoff Nogler, Michael Holzapfel, Boris Michael Moskal, Joseph Oper Orthop Traumatol Zugänge OBJECTIVE: The advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years, and the number of surgeons using the DAA is steadily increasing. Thus, the question arises whether femoral revisions are possible through the same interval. INDICATIONS: Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, malalignment, periprosthetic joint infection or periprosthetic femoral fracture. CONTRAINDICATIONS: A draining sinus from another approach. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The incision for the primary DAA can be extended distally and proximally. If necessary, two releases can be performed to allow better exposure of the proximal femur. The DAA interval can be extended to the level of the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in order to perform a tensor release. If needed, a release of the external rotators can be performed in addition. If a component cannot be explanted endofemorally, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy or an extended trochanteric osteotomy has to be performed, the skin incision needs to be extended distally to maintain access to the femoral diaphysis. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Depending on the indication for the femoral revision, ranging from partial weight bearing in cases of periprosthetic fractures to full weight bearing in cases of aseptic loosening. RESULTS: In all, 50 femoral revisions with a mean age of 65.7 years and a mean follow-up of 2.1 years were investigated. The femoral revision was endofemoral in 41 cases, while a transfemoral approach with a lazy‑S extension was performed in 9 patients. The overall complication rate was 12% (6 complications); 3 patients or 6% of the included patients required reoperations. None of the implanted stems showed a varus or valgus position. There were no cases of mechanical loosening, stem fracture or subsidence. Median WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score before surgery improved significantly from preoperative (52.5) to postoperative (27.2). Springer Medizin 2022-05-31 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9197934/ /pubmed/35641790 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00064-022-00768-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Zugänge
Thaler, Martin
Corten, Kristoff
Nogler, Michael
Holzapfel, Boris Michael
Moskal, Joseph
Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title_full Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title_fullStr Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title_full_unstemmed Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title_short Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
title_sort femoral revision with the direct anterior approach
topic Zugänge
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9197934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35641790
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00064-022-00768-5
work_keys_str_mv AT thalermartin femoralrevisionwiththedirectanteriorapproach
AT cortenkristoff femoralrevisionwiththedirectanteriorapproach
AT noglermichael femoralrevisionwiththedirectanteriorapproach
AT holzapfelborismichael femoralrevisionwiththedirectanteriorapproach
AT moskaljoseph femoralrevisionwiththedirectanteriorapproach