[Comparison of Early Effectiveness Between SuperPATH Approach and Hardinge Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty].
Tingti Yan,Shaoqi Tian,Yuanhe Wang,Xu Yang,Tong Li,Jiangjun Liu,Pichun Pan,Rong Wang,Dandan Wang,Kang Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.201609110
2017-01-01
Abstract:Objective To compare the early effectiveness between SuperPATH approach and traditional Hardinge approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods Between May 2015 and March 2016, 154 patients (173 hips) undergoing initial THA were included. THA was performed by SuperPATH approach in 64 cases (70 hips) in group A and by traditional Hardinge approach in 90 cases (103 hips) in group B. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, type of disease, and Harris hip score (HHS) between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, transfusion rate, ambulation time, length of stay, and complications were recorded. The HHS and visual analogue scale (VAS) were compared between 2 groups before operation and at 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after operation. And the relative parameters were measured for imaging evaluation of prosthesis position. In addition, the stratification analysis was performed on 92 patients (100 hips) who received the SuperPATH technology. Results The incision length, ambulation time, and length of stay in group A were significantly less than those in group B ( P<0.05); the operation time, transfusion rate, and intraoperative blood loss of group A were significantly higher than those of group B ( P<0.05); and there was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between 2 groups ( t=1.901, P=0.071). The follow-up period was 6 to 15 months (mean, 9 months). The VAS scores at 1 day, 3 days, and 1 week after operation in group A were significantly lower than those in group B ( P<0.05), but the HHS scores at 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, and 3 weeks after operation in group A were significantly higher than those in group B ( P<0.05). At 24 weeks after operation, the acetabular cup abduction and the proportion within the safe zone showed no significant difference between 2 groups ( P>0.05); the anteversion angle and limb length difference in group A were significantly greater than those in group B ( P<0.05), and the proportion of anteversion angle within the safe zone and eccentricity and recovery rate were significantly lower than those in group B ( P<0.05). In the stratification analysis, the operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and VAS score at 1 day after operation in the former 30 hips were significantly higher than those in the latter 70 hips ( P<0.05). Great trochantern fracture and dislocation of the hip joint occurred in 1 and 2 of the former 30 hips, but no complications occurred in the latter 70 hips. No injury of nerve or blood vessel, deep vein thrombosis, infection, and prosthetic loosening were observed in the 2 groups. Conclusion Compared with the Hardinge approach, the SuperPATH approach shows the advantages in little trauma, fast recovery, satisfactory effectiveness, and slight early postoperative pain, but it shows the disadvantages of much intraoperative blood loss and long operation time. In addition, SuperPATH approach needs a more anteverted angle, a smaller eccentricity, and a learning curve, so the mid-term and long-term outcomes still need further follow-up study.