A prospective randomized assessment of earlier functional recovery in THA patients treated by minimally invasive direct anterior approach: A gait analysis study

      Abstract

      Background

      Total hip replacement using a minimally invasive surgical approach is claimed to enable recovering of motor function more quickly. The purpose of this prospective As per the stylesheet, kindly provide section headings for abstract.and randomized study was to test this claim by evaluating early patient functional outcomes by gait analysis.

      Methods

      Seventeen patients were operated on using a traditional anterolateral approach (AL), 16 using a minimally invasive direct anterior approach (DA). Gait analysis was performed the day before surgery, and at 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Time–distance and kinematics analyses were performed by a recently proposed anatomically-based gait analysis protocol. A static double-leg stance and five walking trials at self-selected speeds were recorded on a 9-m walkway.

      Findings

      At 6 weeks follow-up, but in the DA group only, a statistically significant improvement with respect to preoperative status was observed for the percentage of single support and for the stride time. Between 6- and 12-week follow-up, the DA group showed a significant improvement in cadence, stride time and length, walking speed, hip flexion at foot contact, maximum hip flexion in swing, and hip total range of motion in the sagittal and the coronal planes. Between 6 and 12 weeks, the AL group showed significant improvements in opposite foot contact and step time, and in flexion at foot contact, maximum flexion in swing, and range of flexion at the hip joint.

      Interpretation

      Minimally invasive DA patients improved in a larger number of gait parameters than patients receiving the traditional AL approach. The majority of improvements occurred between the 6- and 12-week follow-ups.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Baker A.S.
        • Bitounis V.C.
        Abductor function after total hip replacement. An electromyographic and clinical review.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1989; 71: 47-50
        • Bauer R.
        • Kerschbaumer F.
        • Poisel S.
        • Oberthaler W.
        The transgluteal approach to the hip joint.
        Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 1979; 95: 47-49
        • Bell A.L.
        • Pedersen D.R.
        • Brand R.A.
        A comparison of the accuracy of several hip center location prediction methods.
        J. Biomech. 1990; 23: 617-621
        • Bellamy N.
        • Buchanan W.W.
        • Goldsmith C.H.
        • Campbell J.
        • Stitt L.W.
        Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
        J. Rheumatol. 1988; 15: 1833-1840
        • Benedetti M.G.
        • Catani F.
        • Leardini A.
        • Pignotti E.
        • Giannini S.
        Data management in gait analysis for clinical applications.
        Clin. Biomech. 1998; 13: 204-215
        • Bennett D.
        • Ogonda L.
        • Elliott D.
        • Humphreys L.
        • Lawlor M.
        • Beverland D.
        Comparison of immediate postoperative walking ability in patients receiving minimally invasive and standard-incision hip arthroplasty: a prospective blinded study.
        J. Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 490-495
        • Crenshaw A.
        Surgical Approaches.
        eighth ed. Mosby, St. Louis1992
        • Della Croce U.
        • Leardini A.
        • Chiari L.
        • Cappozzo A.
        Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 4: assessment of anatomical landmark misplacement and its effects on joint kinematics.
        Gait Posture. 2005; 21: 226-237
        • Downing N.D.
        • Clark D.I.
        • Hutchinson J.W.
        • Colclough K.
        • Howard P.W.
        Hip abductor strength following total hip arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of the posterior and lateral approach in 100 patients.
        Acta Orthop. Scand. 2001; 72–73: 215-220
        • Ferrari A.
        • Benedetti M.G.
        • Pavan E.
        • Frigo C.
        • Bettinelli D.
        • Rabuffetti M.
        • Crenna P.
        • Leardini A.
        Quantitative comparison of five current protocols in gait analysis.
        Gait Posture. 2008; 28: 207-216
        • Goldstein W.M.
        • Branson J.J.
        • Berland K.A.
        • Gordon A.C.
        Minimal-incision total hip arthroplasty.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2003; 85-A: 33-38
        • Gore D.R.
        • Murray M.P.
        • Sepic S.B.
        • Gardner G.M.
        Anterolateral compared to posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: differences in component positioning, hip strength, and hip motion.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1982; 165: 180-187
        • Hart R.
        • Stipcak V.
        • Janecek M.
        • Visna P.
        Component position following total hip arthroplasty through a miniinvasive posterolateral approach.
        Acta Orthop. Belg. 2005; 71: 60-64
        • Howell J.R.
        • Masri B.A.
        • Duncan C.P.
        Minimally invasive versus standard incision anterolateral hip replacement: a comparative study.
        Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2004; 35: 153-162
        • Hurwitz D.E.
        • Hulet C.H.
        • Andriacchi T.P.
        • Rosenberg A.G.
        • Galante J.O.
        Gait compensations in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and their relationship to pain and passive hip motion.
        J. Orthop. Res. 1997; 15: 629-635
        • Keggi K.J.
        • Huo M.H.
        • Zatorski L.E.
        Anterior approach to total hip replacement: surgical technique and clinical results of our first one thousand cases using non-cemented prostheses.
        Yale J. Biol. Med. 1993; 66: 243-256
        • Krismer M.
        • Rachbauer F.
        Direct, Anterior, Single-incision Approach.
        Springer Medizin Verlag, Heidelberg2004 (pp. 47–54)
        • Leardini A.
        • Sawacha Z.
        • Paolini G.
        • Ingrosso S.
        • Nativo R.
        • Benedetti M.G.
        A new anatomically based protocol for gait analysis in children.
        Gait Posture. 2007; 26: 560-571
        • Long W.T.
        • Dorr L.D.
        • Healy B.
        • Perry J.
        Functional recovery of noncemented total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993; 288: 73-77
        • Madsen M.S.
        • Ritter M.A.
        • Morris H.H.
        • Meding J.B.
        • Berend M.E.
        • Faris P.M.
        • Vardaxis V.G.
        The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical approach on gait.
        J. Orthop. Res. 2004; 22: 44-50
        • McCrory J.L.
        • White S.C.
        • Lifeso R.M.
        Vertical ground reaction forces: objective measures of gait following hip arthroplasty.
        Gait Posture. 2001; 14: 104-109
        • Meneghini R.M.
        • Pagnano M.W.
        • Trousdale R.T.
        • Hozack W.J.
        Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty: Smith-Petersen versus posterior approach.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006; 453: 293-298
        • Meneghini R.M.
        • Smits S.A.
        • Swinford R.R.
        • Bahamonde R.E.
        A randomized, prospective study of 3 minimally invasive surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: comprehensive gait analysis.
        J. Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 68-73
        • Murray M.P.
        • Gore D.R.
        • Clarkson B.H.
        Walking patterns of patients with unilateral hip pain due to osteo-arthritis and avascular necrosis.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1971; 53: 259-274
        • Murray M.P.
        • Brewer B.J.
        • Zuege R.C.
        Kinesiologic measurements of functional performance before and after McKee-Farrar total hip replacement. A study of thirty patients with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, or avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1972; 54: 237-256
        • Nogler M.
        • Mayr E.
        • Krismer M.
        • Thaler M.
        Reduced variability in cup positioning: the direct anterior surgical approach using navigation.
        Acta Orthop. 2008; 79: 789-793
        • 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, controlled trial.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2005; 87: 701-710
        • Perron M.
        • Malouin F.
        • Moffet H.
        • McFadyen B.J.
        Three-dimensional gait analysis in women with a total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin. Biomech. 2000; 15: 504-515
        • Rachbauer F.
        Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Anterior approach.
        Orthopade. 2006; 35 (6–9): 723-724
        • Rigas C.
        • Xenakis T.
        Pre- and post-operative gait analysis of hip osteoarthritic patients fitted with ceramic Autophor total hip replacement.
        Eng. Med. 1988; 17: 3-6
        • Ritter M.A.
        • Albohm M.J.
        • Keating E.M.
        • Faris P.M.
        • Meding J.B.
        Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty.
        J. Arthroplasty. 1995; 10: 737-741
        • Ritter M.A.
        • Harty L.D.
        • Keating M.E.
        • Faris P.M.
        • Meding J.B.
        A clinical comparison of the anterolateral and posterolateral approaches to the hip.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2001; 385: 95-99
        • Stauffer R.N.
        • Smidt G.L.
        • Wadsworth J.B.
        Clinical and biomechanical analysis of gait following Charnley total hip replacement.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1974; 99: 70-77
        • Tanaka Y.
        Gait analysis of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the those with total hip arthroplasty.
        Biomed. Mater. Eng. 1998; 8: 187-196
        • Vaz M.D.
        • Kramer J.F.
        • Rorabeck C.H.
        • Bourne R.B.
        Isometric hip abductor strength following total hip replacement and its relationship to functional assessments.
        J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1993; 18: 526-531
        • Vicar A.J.
        • Coleman C.R.
        A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1984; 188: 152-159
        • Ward S.R.
        • Jones R.E.
        • Long W.T.
        • Thomas D.J.
        • Dorr L.D.
        Functional recovery of muscles after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty.
        Instrum. Course Lect. 2008; 57: 249-254
        • Whatling G.M.
        • Dabke H.V.
        • Holt C.A.
        • Jones L.
        • Madete J.
        • Alderman P.M.
        • Roberts P.
        Objective functional assessment of total hip arthroplasty following two common surgical approaches: the posterior and direct lateral approaches.
        Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H]. 2008; 222: 897-905
        • Wohlrab D.
        • Hagel A.
        • Hein W.
        Advantages of minimal invasive total hip replacement in the early phase of rehabilitation.
        Z. Orthop. Grenzgeb. 2004; 142: 685-690
        • Woolson S.T.
        • Mow C.S.
        • Syquia J.F.
        • Lannin J.V.
        • Schurman D.J.
        Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2004; 86: 1353-1358
        • Wu G.
        • Cavanagh P.R.
        ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of kinematic data.
        J. Biomech. 1995; 28–10: 1257-1261
        • Wu G.
        • Siegler S.
        • Allard P.
        • Kirtley C.
        • Leardini A.
        • Rosenbaum D.
        • Whittle M.
        • D’Lima D.D.
        • Cristofolini L.
        • Witte H.
        • Schmid O.
        • Stokes I.
        Standardization and Terminology Committee of the International Society of Biomechanics. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion – part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics.
        J. Biomech. 2002; 35: 543-548