SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası / 2020 / Cilt: 73 - Sayı: 2

Is the Incision Length Really Important in Minimally Invasive Total Hip Replacement Surgery?

Minimal İnvaziv Total Kalça Artroplastisi Cerrahisinde İnsizyon Uzunluğu Gerçekten Önemli midir?

Erman CEYHAN
Fatih İNCİ
İbrahim Alper YAVUZ
Utku GÜRHAN
Cahit KOÇAK
İrem YILDIRIM
Pages
160–166
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The duration ofthe surgery and the duration of hospitalization were longer in group 2 (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to show the superiority of the minimally invasive techniques over standard techniques and any intraoperativechange in incision length.Materials and Methods: There were 31 patients (8 males, 23 females) operated with the minimally invasive technique, who were defined as group1 and 42 patients (11 males, 31 females) operated with a standard technique, who were defined as group 2.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The hip function was evaluated withHarris Hip Score (HHS), the pain was evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and general physical and mental status with Short Form (SF) - 36.Results: The mean follow-up period was 21.8 months (15-31 months) in group 1 and 58.5 months (42-75 months) in group 2.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The duration ofthe surgery and the duration of hospitalization were longer in group 2 (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to show the superiority of the minimally invasive techniques over standard techniques and any intraoperativechange in incision length.Materials and Methods: There were 31 patients (8 males, 23 females) operated with the minimally invasive technique, who were defined as group1 and 42 patients (11 males, 31 females) operated with a standard technique, who were defined as group 2. The hip function was evaluated withHarris Hip Score (HHS), the pain was evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and general physical and mental status with Short Form (SF) - 36.Results: The mean follow-up period was 21.8 months (15-31 months) in group 1 and 58.5 months (42-75 months) in group 2. The duration ofthe surgery and the duration of hospitalization were longer in group 2 (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı insizyon uzunluğundaki minimal invaziv tekniklerin standart tekniklere göre üstünlüğünü araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Grup 1 olarak tanımlanan ve minimal invaziv teknikle ameliyat edilen 31 hasta (8 erkek, 23 kadın) ve grup 2 olarak tanımlanan ve standart teknikle ameliyat edilen 42 hasta (11 erkek, 31 kadın) vardı. Kalça fonksiyonu Harris Kalça Puanı (HHS) ile, ağrı Görsel Analog skala (VAS) ve genel fiziksel ve zihinsel durumu Kısa Form - 36 ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Grup 1’de ortalama takip süresi 21,8 ay (15-31 ay) ve grup 2’de 58,5 ay (42-75 ay) idi. Ameliyat süresi ve hastanede yatış süresi grup 2’de daha uzun idi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

CEYHAN, E., İNCİ, F., YAVUZ, İ. A., GÜRHAN, U., KOÇAK, C., YILDIRIM, İ. (2022). Is the Incision Length Really Important in Minimally Invasive Total Hip Replacement Surgery?. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, Cilt: 73 - Sayı: 2, 160–166. https://ajindex.com/articles/443544

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Howell JR, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Minimally invasive hip replacement: rationale, applied anatomy, and instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:107-118
  2. Lin DH, Jan MH, Liu TK, et al. Effects of anterolateral minimally invasive surgery in total hip arthroplasty on hip muscle strength, walking speed, and functional score. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:1187-1192
  3. Dorr LD, Maheshwari AV, Long WT, et al. 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
  4. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, et al. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:139- 144
  5. Meneghini RM, Smits SA. Early discharge and recovery with three minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty approaches: a preliminary study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1431-1437
  6. Mears DC, Mears SC, Chelly JE, et al. THA with a minimally invasive technique, multi-modal anesthesia, and home rehabilitation: factors associated with early discharge? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1412-1417
  7. Bal BS, Haltom D, Aleto T, et al. Early complications of primary total hip replacement performed with a two-incision minimally invasive technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2432-2438
  8. Fehring TK, Mason JB. Catastrophic complications of minimally invasive hip surgery: a series of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:711-714
  9. Kim YH. Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a Standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:1092-1098
  10. Graw BP, Woolson ST, Huddleston HG, et al. Minimal incision surgery as a risk factor for early failure of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2372-2376
  11. Archibeck MJ, White RE Jr. Learning curve for the two incision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:232-238
  12. Khan RJ, Fick D, Khoo P, et al. Less invasive total hip arthroplasty: description of a new technique. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:1038-1046
  13. Mardones R, Pagnano MW, Nemanich JP, et al. The Frank Stinchfield Award: muscle damage after total hip arthroplasty done with the two-incision and mini-posterior techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:63-67
  14. Ciminiello M, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: is small incision better? J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:484-488