This study compared a minimally invasive dual cut muscle-sparing surgical technique with a standard Posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty early complications to assess clinical success and alignment directly. Total hip Arthroplasties using a minimally invasive, muscle sparing, dual cut approach conducted on 21 hips (20 patients). This cohort was compared at a settlement payment group from 21 hips (20 patients) with a standard Posterolateral approach. Five complications have been reported for the dual cut group versus a complication for Posterolateral group. Postoperative radiological orientation of the prosthesis was closer optimally for the Posterolateral group. The dual cut Group had more uptime and a significant increase in complications. The authors have set use this technique based on the results of this study.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
A Comparison of the Minimally Invasive Dual-Incision versus Posterolateral Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty
This study directly compared a minimally invasive dual-incision muscle-sparing surgical technique with a standard posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty to assess for early complications, clinical success, and alignment. Total hip arthroplasties using a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, dual-incision approach were performed on 21 hips (20 patients). This cohort was compared to a contemporaneously performed group of 21 hips (20 patients) using a standard posterolateral approach. Five complications were reported for the dual-incision group versus one complication for the posterolateral group. Postoperative radiographic alignment of the prosthesis was closer to optimal for the posterolateral group. The dual-incision group had longer operating times and a significant increase in complications. The authors have discontinued the use of this technique based on the results of this study.
Bookmark ItView the Original article