Low pelvic incidence is a risk factor for intraoperative complications in minimally invasive anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background:

Minimally invasive anterolateral approach (ALA) has gained popularity in recent years as better postoperative functional recovery and lower risk of postoperative dislocation are claimed. However, difficulties for femur exposure and intraoperative complications during femoral canal preparation and component placement have been reported. This study analyses the effect of anatomical factors on difficulties for femoral access and intraoperative complications with a modified minimally invasive ALA.

Material and methods:

310 consecutive patients who had primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) by single surgeon using same approach and technique, and being suitable for EOS were included. All patients underwent pre- and postoperative standing and sitting full-body EOS acquisitions and pelvic and femoral parameters were measured. All intra- and postoperative complications for femoral preparation and implantation were assessed. Intraoperative complications included femoral fractures and difficulties for femoral exposure.

Results:

10 patients (3.2%) had intraoperative femoral fractures (2 greater trochanter, 8 calcar). Difficult access to the proximal femur was reported for 10 other patients (3.2%). Patients with intraoperative complications presented a significantly lower pelvic incidence (PI) than patients without intraoperative complications (mean PI: 39.4° vs. 56.9°, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The pelvic incidence can be useful to detect anatomically less favourable patients for THA implantation using ALA.

Keywords

Anterolateral approach EOS imaging intraoperative complication pelvic incidence total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Martin

Clayson

Troussel

, et al. Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 1362–1372.

Mjaaland

Svenningsen

Fenstad

, et al. Implant survival after minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral vs. conventional posterior or direct lateral approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 840–847.

Bertin

Röttinger

. Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 429: 248–255.

Müller

Tohtz

Springer

, et al. Randomized controlled trial of abductor muscle damage in relation to the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement: minimally invasive anterolateral versus modified direct lateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131: 179–189.

Müller

Tohtz

Dewey

, et al. Evidence of reduced muscle trauma through a minimally invasive anterolateral approach by means of MRI. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 3192–3200.

Laffosse

Chiron

Molinier

, et al. Prospective and comparative study of the anterolateral mini-invasive approach versus minimally invasive posterior approach for primary total hip replacement. Early results. Int Orthop 2007; 31: 597–603.

Ohmori

Kabata

Maeda

, et al. Selection of a surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty according to the depth to the surgical site. Hip Int 2017; 27: 273–280.

Panichkul

Parks

, et al. New approach and stem increased femoral revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2016; 39: 86–92.

Tamaki

Jonishi

Miura

, et al. Cementless tapered-wedge stem length affects the risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 805–809.

10.

Legaye

Duval-Beaupère

Hecquet

, et al. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 99–103.

11.

McTighe

Stulberg

Keppler

, et al. A classification system for short stem uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Proc 2013; 95-B(Suppl. 15): 260.

12.

Crowe

Mani

Ranawat

. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 1979; 61: 15–23.

13.

Dubousset

Charpak

Skalli

, et al. EOS: a new imaging system with low dose radiation in staning position for spine and bone & joint disorders. J Musculoskelet Res 2010; 13: 1–12.

14.

Lazennec

J-Y

Charlot

Gorin

, et al. Hip-spine relationship: a radio-anatomical study for optimization in acetabular cup positioning. Surg Radiol Anat 2004; 26: 136–144.

15.

Frndak

Mallory

Lombardi

Jr.

Translateral surgical approach to the hip. The abductor muscle ‘split’. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 295: 135–141.

16.

Inaba

Kobayashi

Yukizawa

. Little clinical advantage of modified watson-jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 1117–1122.

17.

O’Brien

Rorabeck

. The mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 99–103.

18.

Picado

CHF

Garcia

Marques

Jr . Damage to the superior gluteal nerve after direct lateral approach to the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 455: 209–211.

19.

Ward

Jones

Long

, et al. Functional recovery of muscles after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2008; 57: 249–254.

20.

Woolson

Mow

Syquia

, et al. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 1353–1358.

21.

Delanois

Sultan

Albayar

, et al. The Röttinger approach for total hip arthroplasty: technique, comparison to the direct lateral approach and review of literature. Ann Transl Med 2017; 5: S31.

22.

Lee

G-C

Marconi

. Complications following direct anterior hip procedures: Costs to both patients and surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(Suppl. 9): 98–101.

23.

De Geest

Fennema

Lenaerts

, et al. Adverse effects associated with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135: 1183–1192.

24.

Malek

Royce

Bhatti

, et al. A comparison between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty: the role of an ‘enhanced recovery’ pathway. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 754–760.

25.

Howell

Masri

Duncan

. Minimally invasive versus standard incision anterolateral hip replacement: a comparative study. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35: 153–162.

26.

Boulay

Tardieu

Bénaim

, et al. Three-dimensional study of pelvic asymmetry on anatomical specimens and its clinical perspectives. J Anat 2006; 208: 21–33.

27.

Molli

Lombardi

Jr Berend

, et al. A short tapered stem reduces intraoperative complications in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 450–461.

28.

Lazennec

Thauront

Robbins

, et al. Acetabular and femoral anteversions in standing position are outside the proposed safe zone after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 3550–3556.