Direct lateral approach for hemiarthroplasty: a case series

Authors

  • Ashoke K. Chanda
  • Raju Mandal Department of Orthopaedics, CNMCH, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Sudipta Dasgupta Department of Orthopaedics, CNMCH, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Kousik Biswas Department of Orthopaedics, CNMCH, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Rayan Dalal Department of Orthopaedics, CNMCH, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Himangshu Mudi Department of Orthopaedics, CNMCH, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20242401

Keywords:

Hemiarthroplasty, Hip fractures, Femoral neck

Abstract

Worldwide, hip fractures are a public health concern. The primary course of treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures is still surgery. Even now, hemiarthroplasty remains a highly preferred surgical procedure. The most popular methods for gaining access to the hip joint are the direct lateral and posterior approaches. Aim of this series is to research the short-term functional results, risks, and disadvantages of the direct lateral approach to the hip. Patients with traumatic neck of femur fracture coming to the Department of Orthopaedics, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital and was elected for bipolar hemiarthroplasty as treatment option. Among the 12 cases 9 were males and 3 were females. The value of z is 2.4495. The value of p is 0.01428. The result is significant at p<0.05. Garden’s classification - there were 2 cases of type 3 garden and 10 cases of type 4 garden fractures. The value of z is 3.266. The value of p is 0.00108. The result is significant at p<0.05. Though there is a chance of iatrogenic gluteal nerve and vascular injury -which we did not encounter in our case - the direct lateral approach exposes the hip joint to a sufficient but limited degree. However, the risk of post-operative hip dislocation is minimal because the rotator cuff of the hip joint is preserved; none of the 12 cases that were chosen had this condition.

References

Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982;64-B(1):17-9.

Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Annual Report 2019: Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures. Bergen (Norway): Haukeland University Hospital. 2019;193-246.

Robertson GA, Wood AM. Hip hemi-arthroplasty for neck of femur fracture: What is the current evidence? World J Orthop. 2018;9:235-44.

Moerman S, Mathijssen NMC, Niesten DD, Riedijk R, Rijnberg WJ, Koëter S, et al. More complications in uncemented compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized controlled trial of 201 patients, with one-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):169.

Okike K, Chan PH, Prentice HA, Paxton EW, Burri RA. Association Between Uncemented vs Cemented Hemiarthroplasty and Revision Surgery Among Patients With Hip Fracture. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1077-84.

Cram P, Yan L, Bohm E, Kuzyk P, Lix LM, Morin SN, et al. Trends in Operative and Nonoperative Hip Fracture Management 1990-2014: A Longitudinal Analysis of Manitoba Administrative Data. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(1):27-34.

Moretti VM, Post ZD. Surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51:368-76.

Luo S, Yimamu N, Li Y, Wu H, Irfan M, Hao Y. Digitalization and sustainable development: How could digital economy development improve green innovation in China? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2023;32(4):1847-71.

Subhash S, Archunan MW, Choudhry N, Leong J, Bitar K, Beh S, et al. Hip Hemiarthroplasty: The Misnomer of a Narrow Femoral Canal and the Cost Implications. Cureus. 2021;13(10).

Su Y, Li R, Ren X, Wang Y, Bai X, Zhang Y, et al. The health-related quality of life for hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in the elderly: A meta-analysis. Front Med. 2023;10:1022584.

Downloads

Published

2024-08-28