a

Implant survival for minimally invasive vs. open hip surgery: 4 key notes Featured

Written by  Laura Dyrda | Friday, 19 May 2017 11:14
Social sharing

A study published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery examines implant survival rate for minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral hip surgery with the conventional posterior or direct lateral approach.

 

The study authors gathered data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register that included 21,860 total hip arthroplasties with an uncemented stem. There were 2,017 surgeries through the minimally invasive anterior approach; 2,087 through the minimally invasive anterolateral approach; 5,961 through the posterior approach and 11,795 through the direct lateral approach.

 

All the procedures were preformed from 2008 to 2013. The study authors found:

 

1. There wasn't a significant difference between approach in the two- and five-year survival rates. The relative risk of revision rates were also similar between the groups.

 

2. For the minimally invasive approaches, the relative risk of revision after infection was 0.53, compared to 0.57 for the posterior approach compared to the direct lateral.

 

3. For the posterior approach compared to the direct lateral approach, the relative risk of revision due to dislocation was 2.1. There wasn't a significant risk difference when comparing the minimally invasive approaches to the direct lateral approach.

 

4. The study authors concluded, "The revision rates and risk of revision associated with the MIS anterior and anterolateral approaches were not increased compared with those of the conventional posterior and direct lateral approaches."

 

More articles on orthopedic surgery:
The role of orthopedic surgeons in population health
Dr. Steven Zelicof receives community service award
Mayo: ACL injuries need 2 years to recover

© Copyright ASC COMMUNICATIONS 2017. Interested in LINKING to or REPRINTING this content? View our policies here.

Top 40 Articles from the Past 6 Months