Minimal Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Concise Follow-up Report on Functional and Radiographic Outcomes at 10 Years

Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block combined with local infiltration analgesia is not superior to local infiltration analgesia for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial

Background

Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has been advocated for the pain management after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The analgesic benefits of an added pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block remain questionable.

Methods

This randomized, single-blind trial enrolled patients undergoing elective THA under general anaesthesia and standardized postoperative analgesia. Patients were allocated to receive either a PENG block (20 mL of ropivacaine 0.475 %) combined with intraoperative LIA (PENG + LIA group, n = 32), or intraoperative LIA alone (LIA group, n = 32). The primary outcome was oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption at day 1. Secondary outcomes were: pain scores at post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge and on day 2, times for the Timed to Up and Go (TUG) test and measurement of adductor strength on day 1, and patients' satisfaction using the EVAN-G questionnaire.

Results

Compared with LIA alone, PENG + LIA resulted in similar OME consumption on day 1 (78 [51-91.5] mg vs 58 [30-80] mg respectively, median difference (95%CI) of -17 (-34 to 1) mg, p = 0.09). Pain scores and morphine consumption were not different between groups at any time point. TUG and thigh adduction tests were similar between LIA and PENG + LIA groups (respectively 35 [25-48.5] vs 31.5 [19.5-46.5] sec, p = 0.39; and 105 [85-150] vs 100 [80-125] mmHg, p = 0.61). No difference in the patients' satisfaction was found.

Conclusion

The addition of a PENG block to large-volume LIA did not significantly improve the analgesia for elective THA in the setting of an adequate basic postoperative analgesia regimen. The results of the lower limb functional tests confirmed the PENG block to be motor-sparing.

Compared learning curves of the direct anterior and anterolateral approach for minimally invasive hip replacement

Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty becomes increasingly popular. It is technically challenging and the approaches used are associated with a considerable learning curve. This nurtures concerns regarding patient safety, surgical training, and cost effectiveness. Consequently, we initiated a study comparing the learning curves of a supervised trainee surgeon utilizing both the anterolateral and direct anterior approach (DAA) when introduced to minimally invasive hip replacement surgery. Outcome measurements included the Harris hip score (HHS), cup inclination and anteversion, offset and leg length, stem placement, surgical time and complications. Time from incision to suture decreased significantly over time but did not differ between both groups. The functional outcomes (HHS) after six weeks and three months were comparable (p=0.069 and 0.557) and within the expected range equalling 90.3 (anterior) and 89.2 (anterolateral) points. With both approaches safe component placement was readily achieved. Both offset and leg length, however, were reconstructed more reliably with the DAA (p=0.02 and 0.001). A higher rate of dislocations was seen with the anterior, more perioperative infections with the anterolateral approach. We suggest that supervision by an experienced surgeon favourably influences the learning curves for both the minimally invasive DAA and anterolateral approach and conclude that the greatest improvement is seen within the first 60 cases.

Piriformis-Sparing Minimally Invasive Versus the Standard Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 10-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the popularity of minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty, studies regarding their impact on soft tissues and long-term benefits are lacking. This study aims to compare the 10-year functional outcome of the piriformis-sparing minimally invasive approach to the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty surgery.

METHODS

Hundred patients were randomized, 48 patients to the piriformis-sparing approach and 52 to the standard approach. Primary outcomes were hip function and piriformis muscle volume and grade on magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes were pain, satisfaction score, and complications. Evaluators were blinded to allocation. Participants were followed up to 10 years.

RESULTS

Ten years following surgery, both groups reported excellent pain relief, improved hip function, and high satisfaction. The significant differences were improvement in piriformis muscle volume (P = .001) and muscle grade (P = .007) in the piriformis-sparing group compared to the standard group. There were no significant differences in all other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Aside from being less injurious to the piriformis muscle, the piriformis-sparing approach offered the same long-term functional benefits as the standard posterior approach at 10 years.

A prospective randomized comparison of the minimally invasive direct anterior and the transgluteal approach for primary total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The presented prospective randomized controlled single-centre study compares the clinical outcome up to 12 months after total hip arthroplasty using a minimally invasive single-incision direct anterior (DAA) and a direct transgluteal lateral approach.

METHODS

A total of 123 arthroplasties were evaluated utilizing the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the extra short musculoskeletal functional assessment questionnaire (XSFMA), the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, a Stepwatch™ Activity Monitor (SAM), and a timed 25 m foot walk (T25-FW). Postoperative x-ray images after THA were reviewed to determine inclination and stem positioning.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, the XSFMA functional index scores were 10.3 (anterior) and 15.08 (lateral) while the bother index summed up to a score of 15.8 (anterior) and 21.66 (lateral) respectively, thus only differing significantly for the functional index (p = 0.040 and p = 0.056). The SF-36 physical component score (PCS) was 47.49 (anterior) and 42.91 (lateral) while the mental component score (MCS) summed up to 55.0 (anterior) and 56.23 (lateral) with a significant difference evident for the PCS (p = 0.017; p = 0.714). Patients undergoing THA through a DAA undertook a mean of 6402 cycles per day while those who had undergone THA through a transgluteal approach undertook a mean of 5340 cycles per day (p = 0.012). Furthermore, the obtained outcome for the T25-FW with 18.4 s (anterior) and 19.75 s (lateral) and the maximum walking distance (5932 m and 5125 m) differed significantly (p = 0.046 and p = 0.045). The average HHS showed no significant difference equaling 92.4 points in the anterior group and 91.43 in the lateral group (p = 0.477). The radiographic analysis revealed an average cup inclination of 38.6° (anterior) and 40.28° (lateral) without signs of migration.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our outcomes show that after 1 year THA through the direct anterior approach results in a higher patient activity compared to THA utilizing a transgluteal lateral approach while no differences regarding hip function are evident.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00014808 (German Clinical Trial Register DRKS); date of registration: 31.05.2018.