Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 9/2010

01-09-2010 | Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty

Minimal Incision Surgery as a Risk Factor for Early Failure of Total Hip Arthroplasty

Authors: Bradley P. Graw, MD, Steven T. Woolson, MD, Heather G. Huddleston, MD, Stuart B. Goodman, MD, PhD, James I. Huddleston, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 9/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Minimal incision total hip arthroplasty (MI THA) techniques were developed to decrease postoperative pain and recovery time. Although these techniques have increased in popularity, the long-term survivorship of these procedures is unknown.

Questions/purposes

We therefore investigated whether the time to revision in our referral practice was shorter for patients who underwent primary MI THA compared to primary traditional THA.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 46 revision THAs performed during a 3-year period. We excluded revisions performed for infection and rerevisions. Patients with incisions less than or equal to 10 cm were defined as having had MI THA. Fifteen of the 46 patients (33%) had undergone primary MI THA. At the time of primary index THA, the mean ages of the MI and non-MI patients were 65 years and 55 years, respectively.

Results

The mean time to revision was 1.4 years for the MI patients compared with 14.7 years for the non-MI patients. Twelve of the 15 patients having MI THA required revision within 2 years of primary THA compared to 4 of the 31 patients without MI surgery (OR = 26.5, 95% CI 4.4–160.0). There were no differences between the groups with regard to age, gender, or body mass index. The most common reasons for revision in the MI THA group were intraoperative fracture and failure of femoral component osseointegration.

Conclusions

Our data suggest MI THA may be a risk factor for early revision surgery and the long-term survival therefore may be lower than that for non-MI surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
Bal BS, Haltom D, Aleto T, Barrett M. Early complications of primary total hip replacement performed with a two-incision minimally invasive technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2432–2438.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Berry DJ, Berger RA, Callaghan JJ, Dorr LD, Duwelius PJ, Hartzband MA, Lieberman JR, Mears DC. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Development, early results, and a critical analysis. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Association, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, June 14, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2235–2246.PubMed
3.
Bozic K. Single mini-incision has some perioperative advantages over standard-incision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1279.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bozic KJ, Beringer D. Economic considerations in minimally invasive total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:20–25.PubMed
5.
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:128–133.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Callaghan JJ, Bracha P, Liu SS, Piyaworakhun S, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Survivorship of a Charnley total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of thirty-five years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2617–2621.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:139–144.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B. Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:175–182.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dorr LD, Maheshwari AV, Long WT, Wan Z, Sirianni LE. Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1153–1160.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hungerford DS. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(Suppl 1):81–82.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kim YH. Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:1092–1098.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E, Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Malchau H, Lau E. Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:144–151.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lubowitz JH, Sahasrabudhe A, Appleby D. Minimally invasive surgery in total knee arthroplasty: the learning curve. Orthopedics. 2007;30:80–82.PubMed
14.
Masonis J, Thompson C, Odum S. Safe and accurate: learning the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008;31(Suppl 2).
15.
Mow CS, Woolson ST, Ngarmukos SG, Park EH, Lorenz HP. Comparison of scars from total hip replacements done with a standard or mini-incision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005:441:80–85.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O’Brien S, Beverland D. A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:701–710.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Pagnano MW, Hebl J, Horlocker T. Assuring a painless total hip arthroplasty: a multimodal approach emphasizing peripheral nerve blocks. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(Suppl 1):80–84.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Meneghini RM, Hanssen AD. Slower recovery after two-incision than mini-posterior-incision total hip arthroplasty. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1000–1006.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Peters CL, Erickson JA, Hines JL. Early results of the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: the learning curve at an academic medical center. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1920–1926.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Pour AE, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: what role does patient preconditioning play? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1920–1927.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(Suppl 1):78–80.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Seng BE, Berend KR, Ajluni AF, Lombardi AV Jr. Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40:343–350.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Wall SJ, Mears SC. Analysis of published evidence on minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(Suppl 7):55–58.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin JV, Schurman DJ. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1353–1358.PubMed
25.
Woolson ST, Pouliot MA, Huddleston JI. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an anterior approach and a fracture table. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:999–1005.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Wright JM, Crockett HC, Delgado S, Lyman S, Madsen M, Sculco TP. Mini-incision for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled investigation with 5-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:538–545.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimal Incision Surgery as a Risk Factor for Early Failure of Total Hip Arthroplasty
Authors
Bradley P. Graw, MD
Steven T. Woolson, MD
Heather G. Huddleston, MD
Stuart B. Goodman, MD, PhD
James I. Huddleston, MD
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1300-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 9/2010 Go to the issue

Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty

Should Gram Stains Have a Role in Diagnosing Hip Arthroplasty Infections?

Clinical Research

Natural Course of Asymptomatic Deep Venous Thrombosis in Hip Surgery without Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis in an Asian Population

Clinical Research

Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: Open Reduction as a Risk Factor for Substantial Osteonecrosis

Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty

Intraoperative Femur Fracture is Associated with Stem and Instrument Design in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Society Awards

2010 Nicolas Andry Award: Multipotent Adult Stem Cells from Adipose Tissue for Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering

Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty

Antiemesis After Total Joint Arthroplasty: Does a Single Preoperative Dose of Aprepitant Reduce Nausea and Vomiting?