The length of distal skin incision of the postero-lateral approach affects the cup inclination during the total hip arthroplasty

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 5, 1238 - 1245, 25.09.2022

Aziz Çataltepe

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1071852

Öz

Aim: The primary aim of the study was to determine whether the length of the distal skin incision of the posterolateral approach affects the cup inclination during total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Material and Method: In this study, a cohort of 71 consecutive patients who performed between January 2017 and December 2021 with unilateral THA using a posterolateral approach was retrospectively assessed. Two groups were formed according to acetabular cup inclination with normal anteversion angle. There were 56 hips in the inside group and 17 in the outside group. A curvilinear skin incision of around 13 cm was performed. Component position evaluation was carried out through a radiographic assessment of the acetabular component on an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph. The rate of an outlier was compared between groups according to the safe zone defined as 30° to 50° of inclination and 5° to 25° of anteversion, which was described by Lewinnek et al.
Results: No significant difference in the average total incision length was found between the two groups (p=0.207). While the average distal incision length was 7.91±0.62 cm (range, 6.8-9 cm) in the inside group and 6.37±0.21 cm (range, 6-6.7 cm) in the outside group. According to ROC analysis, a patient with ≤6.7 cm of the distal length of incision (DLI) was 5.71 times more likely to be outside than a patient with >6.7 cm of DLI. Seventeen hips (23.3%) were found outside the safe range. Substantial differences were observed regarding radiographic cup inclination between the two groups (p=0.0001). In the inside group, the average cup inclination was 44.11°±3.44° (range, 37°-50°), whereas, in the outside group, it was 55.41°±2.5° (range, 52°-59°). However, there were no significant differences in the average radiographic cup anteversion between the two groups (p=0.960). Although 11 of 17 (64.5%) patients were classified as obese (BMI ≥30) in the outside group experienced higher rates of inaccurate cup orientation, logistic regression analysis showed that the individual effects of obesity on the occurrence of the inaccurate cup position were not observed (p=0.884). One posterior hip dislocation occurred after one month postoperative in the outside group.
Conclusions: Longer distal portion of the skin incision of the posterolateral approach should be performed to achieve optimal operative inclination angles of the acetabular cup during THA. The surgeon must have no hesitation in extending the distal skin incision when adopting the posterolateral approach.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Total hip arthroplasty, posterior approach, distal length of incision, acetabular cup inclination, body mass index

Teşekkür

Special thanks to Renza Konyalioglu who is a statistician.

Kaynakça

• Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ. Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 447: 34-8.
• van Duren BH, Royeca JM, Cunningham CM, Lamb JN, Brew CJ, Pandit H. Can the use of an inclinometer improve acetabular cup inclination in total hip arthroplasty? A review of the literature. Hip Int 2021; 31: 609-17.
• Najarian BC, Kilgore JE, Markel DC. Evaluation of component positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device compared with traditional methods. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 15-21.
• Crompton J, Osagie-Clouard L, Patel A. Do hip precautions after posterior-approach total hip arthroplasty affect dislocation rates? A systematic review of 7 studies with 6,900 patients. Acta Orthop 2020; 91: 687-92.
• Zhao JX, Su XY, Zhao Z, Xiao RX, Zhang LC, Tang PF. Radiographic assessment of the cup orientation after total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8: 130.
• Goyal T, Choudhury AK, Paul S, Gupta T, Das L. Acetabular and Femoral Component Positioning Using Direct Anterior Approach Versus Posterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop 2021; 55: 1215-24.
• Dion CA, Schmidt-Braekling T, Falsetto A, Kreviazuk C, Beaulé PE, Grammatopoulos G. Does surgical approach influence the natural history of the unstable total hip replacement? J Arthroplasty 2021: S0883-5403(21)00947-5.
• Wan Z, Boutary M, Dorr LD. The influence of acetabular component position on wear in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 51-6.
• Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60: 217-20.
• Sharma AK, Cizmic Z, Dennis DA, Kreuzer SW, Miranda MA, Vigdorchik JM. Low dislocation rates with the use of patient specific "Safe zones" in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop 2021; 27: 41-8.
• Hamilton WG, Parks NL, Huynh C. Comparison of Cup Alignment, Jump Distance, and Complications in Consecutive Series of Anterior Approach and Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1959-62.
• Woerner M, Sendtner E, Springorum R, et al. Visual intraoperative estimation of cup and stem position is not reliable in minimally invasive hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 225-30.
• Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg 2015; 58: 128-39.
• Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 762-9.
• Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 698-704.
• Kim YH, Choi Y, Kim JS. Influence of patient-, design-, and surgery-related factors on rate of dislocation after primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1258-63.
• García-Rey E, García-Cimbrelo E. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 484-90.
• Oddy MJ, Jones MJ, Pendegrass CJ, Pilling JR, Wimhurst JA. Assessment of reproducibility and accuracy in templating hybrid total hip arthroplasty using digital radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 581-5.
• Liaw CK, Hou SM, Yang RS, Wu TY, Fuh CS. A new tool for measuring cup orientation in total hip arthroplasties from plain radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 451: 134‐9.
• National Institutes of Health. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults--The Evidence Report. Obes Res 1998 Sep;6 Suppl 2: 51S-209S. Erratum in: Obes Res 1998; 6: 464.
• Ji W, Stewart N. Fluoroscopy assessment during anterior minimally invasive hip replacement is more accurate than with the posterior approach. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 21-7.
• Naito Y, Hasegawa M, Tone S, Wakabayashi H, Sudo A. The accuracy of acetabular cup placement in primary total hip arthroplasty using an image-free navigation system. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22: 1016.
• Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 319-29.
• Grammatopoulos G, Pandit HG, da Assunção R, et al. The relationship between operative and radiographic acetabular component orientation: which factors influence resultant cup orientation? Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 1290-7.
• Saxler G, Marx A, Vandevelde D, et al. von Knoch M, Holland-Letz T, Bernsmann K. The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning--a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop 2004; 28: 198-201.
• Danoff JR, Bobman JT, Cunn G, et al. Redefining the Acetabular Component Safe Zone for Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 506-11.
• Bosker BH, Verheyen CC, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJ. Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2007; 127: 375-9.
• Fujishiro T, Hiranaka T, Hashimoto S, et al. The effect of acetabular and femoral component version on dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 697-702.
• Lin TJ, Bendich I, Ha AS, et al. Comparison of radiographic outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between the posterior approach and direct anterior approach with intraoperative fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 : 616-23.
• Khan RJ, Fick D, Khoo P, Yao F, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Less invasive total hip arthroplasty: description of a new technique. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 1038-46.
• Hoskins W, Dowsey MM, Spelman T, Choong PFM. Early surgical complications of total hip arthroplasty related to surgical approach. ANZ J Surg 2020; 90: 2050-5.
• Polat A, Misir A, Buyukkuscu MO, Firat F, Basilgan S. The effects of shoulder and hip widths on the acetabular angle in hip arthroplasty performed in the lateral decubitus position. Trochanter/shoulder ratio effect on postop inclination. Ann Med Res 2022; 29: 633–8.
• Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migrationJ Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 530‐4.
• Perticarini L, Rossi SMP, Benazzo F. Unstable total hip replacement: why? Clinical and radiological aspects. Hip Int 2020; 30: 37-41.
• Haffer H, Wang Z, Hu Z, et al. Does obesity affect acetabular cup position, spinopelvic function and sagittal spinal alignment? A prospective investigation with standing and sitting assessment of primary hip arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16: 640.
• Zhao W, Li S, Yin Y, et al. Direct anterior approach in lateral decubitus position versus supine position for unilateral total hip arthroplasty: a comparative study. Orthop Surg 2021; 13: 786-90.