Comparison of short-term outcomes between minimal invasive superpath approach and conventional posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial
Keywords:Hip, Arthroplasty, Superpath, Posterior, Approach
Background: The objective of current study was to compare the short-term outcomes between a cohort of patients that undergone total hip replacement by a superpath technique at the beginning of the surgeon's learning curve, and a cohort of patients that undergone a total hip replacement by a conventional posterior approach.
Methods: A cohort of 22 patients was prospectively and randomly selected for being part of a superpath approach group or a conventional posterior approach group. Clinical evaluation was performed in two primary end-points - the third post-operative day and the first month after surgery - using physical exams as the “20 meter walking test” and the “30 seconds sit to stand test”, the Harris hip score, the visual analogue scale for pain. Radiological evaluation was also performed.
Results: 11 patients underwent the superpath approach and 11 patients underwent the conventional posterior approach. The surgery time was 78.2 min in the superpath group and 59.4 min in the posterior group. The average hospital stay was 3.4 days in the superpath group and 5.3 days in the posterior group. When assessing pain improvement through VAS, it was found that both on the third postoperative day and on the first postoperative month, patients in the superpath group showed greater improvement. There were no differences in functional results with statistical significance. No complications were seen in both groups.
Conclusions: Despite the longer surgical time seen with the superpath approach, it managed to significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and obtained better results in improving pain in the short term.
Zhang YJ. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26(3):355-69.
Chow J, Penenberg B, Murphy S. Modified micro-superior percutaneously assisted total hip: early experiences and case reports. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4:146-50.
Penenberg BL, Bolling WS, Riley M. Percutaneosly assisted total hip arthroplasty (PATH): a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:209-20
Murphy SB, Tannast M. Conventional vs. minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study of rehabilitation and complications. Orthopade. 2006;35:766-8.
Gofton W, Chow J, Olsen KD, Fitch DA. Thirty-day readmission rate and discharge status following total hip arthroplasty using the supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip surgical technique. Int Orthop. 2015;39:847-51.
Della Torre PK, Fitch DA, Chow JC. Supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip arthroplasty: radiographic outcomes and surgical technique. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3:180.
Xie J, Zhang H, Wang L, Yao X, Pan Z, Jiang Q. Comparison of supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach total hip versus conventional posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12:138.
Timothy S, Bruce W, Jacqueline KP, René F, Randy B. Hand-held dynamometry correlation with the gold standard isokinetic dynamometry: a systematic review. 2011;3(5):472-9.
Ishøi L, Hölmich P, Thorborg K. Measures of hip muscle strength and rate of force development using a fixated handheld dynamometer: intra-tester intra-day reliability of a clinical set-up. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019;14(5):715-23.
Andrew WB, Robert S, David A. Use of the supercapsular percutaneosly assisted total hip approach for femoral neck fractures: surgical technique and case series. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):113.
Xu G, Hu L, Yang S. Short-term follow-up study of superpath minimally invasive approach in artificial femoral head replacement for senile femoral neck fractures. Hainan Med J. 2018;29(17):2400-4.
Cardenas-Nylander C, Bellotti V, Astarita E, Moya Gomez E, Ribas Fernandez M. Innovative approach in total hip arthroplasty: supercapsular percutaneously assisted. Hip Int. 2016;26:34-7.
Chow J, Fitch DA. In-hospital costs for total hip replacement performed using the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip replacement surgical technique. Int Orthop. 2017;41:1119-23.
Más-Martínez J, Sanz-Reig J, Morales-Santías M, Bustamante D, Verdu RC, Martinez GE. Estudio de cohortes comparativo delabordaje Superpath conabordaje convencional posterior encirugía protésica primaria de cadera no cementada: curva de aprendizajey resultados a corto plazo. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2019;63:346-54.
Dobson F, Bennell KL. Recommended performance based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthrit Cart. 2012;21(8):1042-52.
Bayram U, Refik HB, Ertugrul Y, Senol C, Serpil K, Vasfi K. Reliability of 4-meter and 10-meter walk tests after lower extremity surgery. Disab Rehab. 2017;39:2572-6.
Ramadanov A. Comparison of short-term outcomes between superpath approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthopaed Surg Res. 2020;15:420.
Zhenguo S, Heng L, Yang H, Jikang M. Systematic review on the curative effect of total hip arthroplasty through supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip approach versus posterolateral approach for treatment of hip diseases. J Trad Chin Orthop. 2018;30(01):32-7.