Ahmet YILDIRIM, Tacettin AYANAOĞLU, MUSTAFA ÖZER, Erdinç ESEN, Ulunay KANATLI, Selçuk BÖLÜKBAŞI

The evaluation of two different surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty according to the patient satisfaction, plantar pressure distribution and trendelenburg sign

The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the results of two different surgical aproaches for total hip arthroplasty as Trendelenburg sign, plantar pressure distribution with the help of dynamic pedobarography and clinical results by Harris Hip Score. A total of 28 patients who underwent unilateral total hip arthroplasty using two different types of lateral approach as conventional lateral Hardinge approach and intermuscular Hardinge approach described by Pai were included in this study. Plantar pressures have maesured by EMED-SF pedobarography device and analysed by the help of a commercial software; that seperates the foot to the four different parts which are called masks. Trendelenburg’s sign has been estimated as grade 1 and grade 2 by the method which was described by Hardcastle and Nade. Clinical outcome was measured by comparing Harris Hip Scores pre-operatively and postoperatively at last clinic visit. In both groups after the two years from the surgery; total contact time has increased at the operation side when the results were compared before the surgery at the same side and at the other side after the surgery. Also when we looked at the first and second masks which show the significant part of the stance phase; contact areas have similarly increased and the changes at the peak pressures were similar as contact areas. In both groups Harris Hip score was increased significantly after the operation. This is the first study to compare two different lateral approaches by pedobarographic analysis, clinical evaluation and functional scoring. The fuctional and clinical early results are similar in both lateral hip approaches for total hip arthroplasty when superior gluteal nerve protection, conjuant tendon repair and postoperative rehabilitation have done well.

PDF

___

Vicar AJ, Coleman CR. A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:152-9.

Tronzo RG. Surgery of the hip joint. Lea & Febiger, US; 1973.

Burnett CN, Betts EF, King WM. Reliability of isokinetic measurements of hip muscle torque in young boys. Phys Ther. 1990;70:244-9.

Mawdsley RH, Knapik JJ. Comparison of isokinetic measurements with test repetitions. Phys Ther. 1982;62-2:169-72.

Long W, Dorr L, Healy B, Perry J. Functional recovery of noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1993;288:73-7.

Whittle M. The use of virtual heel markers to measure walking base in clinical gait analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the 3D Analysis of Human Movement, 2000;70-2.

Hurkmans HLP. Techniques for measuring weight bearing during standing and walking, Clin Biomech. 2003;18:576-89.

Korkmaz MF, Sevimli R, Total Hip Artroplasty, J Clin Anal Med 2015.

McCrory J, White S. Lifeso R. Vertical ground reaction forces: objective measures of gait fol-lowing hip arthroplasty. Gait Posture. 2001;14:104-9.

Perron M, Malouin F, Moffet H, et al. Three-dimensional gait analysis in women with a total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech. 2000;15:504-15.

Crenshaw A. Surgical approaches. In: Crenshaw AH, editor. Campbell’s Operative Orthopae-dics. 8th ed. St. Louis. MO: Mosby-Year Book, lnc; 1992.

Whittle MW. Gait analysis: an introduction Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann 1996.

Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 1987; 20:547-51.

Trendelenburg F. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1895;21:21.

Hardcastle P, Nade S. The significance of the Trendelenburg test, J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:741-6.

Kim HY, Kim SJ, Oh SH, et al. Comparison of porous coated titanium femoral stems with and without hydroxiapatite coating J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85:1682-8.

Pieringer H, Auersperg V, Griebler W, et al. Long- term results with the Cementless alloclas-sic brand hip arthroplasty system. J.Arthroplasty. 2003;18:321-8.

Hellman EJ, Capello WN, Feinberg JR. Omnifit cementless total hip arthroplasty. A 10 year average follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;364:164-4.

Solak SA, Aydın E, Pestilci F. Hidroksiapatit kaplı total kalça protezleri ile kısa dönem takip sonuçlarımız. Turkish J. Arthroplasty Arthroscopic Surg. 1999;2:117-22.

Sevimli R, Aslanturk O, Ertem K, et al. An investigation of infection rate and seasonal effect level in total joint replacement cases. Med-Science. 2018;7:210-3.

Madsen MS, Ritter MA, Morris HH, et al. The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical appro-ach on gait. J Orthop Res 2004;22:44-50.

Baker AS, Bitounis VC. Abductor function after total hip replacement. An electromyographic and clinical review J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:47-50.

Youdas JW, Madson TJ. Usefulness of the Trendelenburg test for identification of patients with hip joint osteoarthritis Physiother Theory Pract. 2010;26:184-94.

Sinha A, Twycross-Lewis R, Small C, et al. Motion analysis as an outcome measure for hip arthroplasty The Surgeon. 2011;9:284-91.

Madsen MS, Ritter MA, Morris HH, et al. The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical appro-ach on gait Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2004;22:44-50.

Queen RM, Butler RJ, Watters TS, Kelley SS, Attarian DE, Bolognesi MP. The Effect of To-tal Hip Arthroplasty Surgical Approach on Postoperative Gait Mechanics The Journal of Arth-roplasty. 2011;26:66-71.

Özaras N, Yalçın S. Yürüme Analizi, Avrupa Tıp Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2001

Rantanen T, Era P, Heikkinen E. Maximal isometric strength and mobility among 75-year-old men and women, Age Ageing. 1994;23:132-7.

Cichy B, Wilk M, Sliwiński Z. Changes in gait parameters in total hip arthroplasty patients be-fore and after surgery, Med Sci Monit. 2008;14:15969.

Bennett D, Ogonda L, Elliott D, et al. Comparison of gait kinematics in patients receiving mi-nimally invasive and traditional hip replacement surgery: a prospective blinded study. Gait Posture. 2006;23:374-82.

Nantel J, Termoz N, Vendittolo PA, et al. Gait patterns after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:463-9.

Siebenrock KA, Rösler KM, Gonzalez E, et al. Intraoperative electromyography of the supe-rior gluteal nerve during lateral approach to the hip for arthroplasty: a prospective study of 12 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:867-70.

Kim HY, Oh HS, Kim JS. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a secondgeneration cementless total hip prosthesisin patients younger than fifty years of age. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003; 85:109-14.

Bojeskul JA, Xenos JS, Callaghan JJ, et al. Results of porous coated anatomic total hip arth-roplasty without cement at fifteen years: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85:1079-83.

Archibeck MJ, Berger RA, Jacobs JJ, et al. Second generation cementless total hip arthrop-lasty. Eight to eleven year results. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001;83-A11:1666-73.

Aldinger PR, Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, et al. A ten to 15 year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem. J Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2003;85-2:209-14.

Jerosch J, Theising C, Mohie E. Antero-lateral minimal invasive (almi) approach for total hip arthroplasty technique and early results, archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2006;136:164-73.