Cargando…

Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) show inconsistent findings regarding planning adherence in digital templating. The purpose of this study is to evaluate any difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and an anterolateral MI...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luger, Matthias, Feldler, Sandra, Schauer, Bernhard, Hochgatterer, Rainer, Gotterbarm, Tobias, Klasan, Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9958123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35179634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04374-9
_version_ 1784894958234238976
author Luger, Matthias
Feldler, Sandra
Schauer, Bernhard
Hochgatterer, Rainer
Gotterbarm, Tobias
Klasan, Antonio
author_facet Luger, Matthias
Feldler, Sandra
Schauer, Bernhard
Hochgatterer, Rainer
Gotterbarm, Tobias
Klasan, Antonio
author_sort Luger, Matthias
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) show inconsistent findings regarding planning adherence in digital templating. The purpose of this study is to evaluate any difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and an anterolateral MIS approach (AL MIS) in cementless short stem THA. METHODS: A single surgeon series of 222 THAs in 208 patients with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup were screened for inclusion. A total of 118 THAs were implanted via the DAA and 72 THAs via the AL MIS were included. The planning adherence for the offset option, stem size and the acetabular cup were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Planning adherence for cup size (perfect match: p = 0.763; ± 1 size: p = 0.124), offset option (0.125) and stem size (perfect match: p = 0.275; ± 1 size: p = 0.552) did not show any statistical significance. Preoperative diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in AL MIS approach (OR 6.045; CI 1.153–31.696) or mild hip dysplasia in the general cohort poses (OR 11.789; CI 1.386–100.293) a significant risk for inadequate prediction of the offset option. Conclusion: digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches. CONCLUSION: Digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9958123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99581232023-02-26 Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach? Luger, Matthias Feldler, Sandra Schauer, Bernhard Hochgatterer, Rainer Gotterbarm, Tobias Klasan, Antonio Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Hip Arthroplasty PURPOSE: Minimally invasive approaches (MIS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) show inconsistent findings regarding planning adherence in digital templating. The purpose of this study is to evaluate any difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and an anterolateral MIS approach (AL MIS) in cementless short stem THA. METHODS: A single surgeon series of 222 THAs in 208 patients with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup were screened for inclusion. A total of 118 THAs were implanted via the DAA and 72 THAs via the AL MIS were included. The planning adherence for the offset option, stem size and the acetabular cup were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Planning adherence for cup size (perfect match: p = 0.763; ± 1 size: p = 0.124), offset option (0.125) and stem size (perfect match: p = 0.275; ± 1 size: p = 0.552) did not show any statistical significance. Preoperative diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in AL MIS approach (OR 6.045; CI 1.153–31.696) or mild hip dysplasia in the general cohort poses (OR 11.789; CI 1.386–100.293) a significant risk for inadequate prediction of the offset option. Conclusion: digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches. CONCLUSION: Digital templating for THA with an uncemented short curved stem and a bi-hemispherical acetabular cup show comparable results between a direct anterior approach and a minimally invasive anterolateral approach in supine position. Surgeons should be aware of a low planning adherence for this type of short stem in minimally invasive approaches. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-18 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9958123/ /pubmed/35179634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04374-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Hip Arthroplasty
Luger, Matthias
Feldler, Sandra
Schauer, Bernhard
Hochgatterer, Rainer
Gotterbarm, Tobias
Klasan, Antonio
Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title_full Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title_fullStr Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title_full_unstemmed Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title_short Digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
title_sort digital templating cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference in planning adherence between the direct anterior approach and minimally invasive anterolateral approach?
topic Hip Arthroplasty
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9958123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35179634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04374-9
work_keys_str_mv AT lugermatthias digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach
AT feldlersandra digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach
AT schauerbernhard digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach
AT hochgattererrainer digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach
AT gotterbarmtobias digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach
AT klasanantonio digitaltemplatingcementlessshortstemtotalhiparthroplastyisthereadifferenceinplanningadherencebetweenthedirectanteriorapproachandminimallyinvasiveanterolateralapproach