The early clinical outcomes of supercapsular percutaneouly-assisted total hip in total hip arthroplasty
Xie Guangwen1, Luo Jialong1, Zhang Jun1, He Jie1, Ren Dong2, Wang Ting1
1Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University of Jing Tang Hospital, Chengdu 610400, China; 2Department of Orthopedics, Chengdu No.6 People's Hospital, Chengdu 610051, China
Abstract：Objective To investigate the early clinical outcomes of supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPATH) in total hip arthropalasty (THA).Methods One hundred and fifty three patients(160 hips)received THA in West China Hospital affiliated Jing Tang Hospital from June 2016 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. In total, 79 were males and 74 females, ranged from 25 to 86 years, mean (60.81±10.55) years. Left side were 68, right side were 78, bilateral side were 7. Patients were divided into two groups according to different surgical technique, one group was SuperPATH minimal invasive group (SuperPATH group), with 69 patients (72 hips), the other group was traditional posterior-lateral group (traditional group), with 84 patients (88 hips). The patients were followed and perioperative condition, joint function recovery, laboratory indexing and radiographic results were evaluated between the two groups.Results Patients in both groups were successfully performed the operation. The surgical time, incision length, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage amount, CRP and ESR for patients in SuperPATH group were (112.09±21.93) min, (8.45±1.10) cm, (243.18±66.00) mL, (186.36±65.80) mL, (84.07±51.69) mg/L and (46.95±19.58)mm/L, which were (94.69±13.13)min, (14.69±1.41)cm, (290.38±69.31)mL, (240.38±61.68) mL, (134.72±57.51) mg/L and (64.05±27.17) mm/L in the traditional group, respectively. There were statistical differences in two groups(t=3.636, 16.703, 2.822, 3.069, 2.922 , 2.339, all P values＜0.05). One hundred and fifty-three patients (160 hips) were followed up, the average follow-up time was 6-31 months, average of 24 months. No periprosthetic fracture, infection, and dislocation occurred in both the two groups. During the last follow up, no implant subsidence, radiolucent line and osteolysis were found in any patient. The hip flexion and abduction angle in SuperPATH group were 118.18°±7.64° and 42.95°±3.67°, respectively, which were significantly different compared with those in the traditional group 110.77°±10.55° and 38.08°±5.49° (t=3.881, 3.022, all P values＜0.05). No significant differences were found in terms of VAS, Harris scores, cup abduction angle and anteversion angle (all P values＞0.05). In the SperPATH group, 1 case (1 hip) had mild varus of femoral stalk. The femoral stems were in neutral position in the traditional operation group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups(P＞0.05).Conclusions Although showing longer surgical time, SuperPATH technique can reserve dynamic structure around hip, reduce surgical injury, improve hip stability and enhance patient recovery in the early follow-up period, which meet the requirement of minimal invasive surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery in hip arthroplasty field.
谢光文, 罗加龙, 张俊, 贺杰, 任冬, 王艇. SuperPATH微创技术在全髋关节置换术中的应用及近期疗效分析[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2019, 24(5): 470-476.
Xie Guangwen, Luo Jialong, Zhang Jun, He Jie, Ren Dong, Wang Ting. The early clinical outcomes of supercapsular percutaneouly-assisted total hip in total hip arthroplasty. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2019, 24(5): 470-476.
Vehmeijer SBW, Husted H, Kehlet H. Outpatient total hip and knee arthroplasty[J]. Acta Orthop, 2018, 89(2): 141-144. DOI:10.1080/17453674.2017.1410958.
[2]
Soffin EM, YaDeau JT. Enhanced recovery after surgery for primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a review of the evidence[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2016, 117(suppl 3): iii62-iii72. DOI:10.1093/bja/aew362.
[3]
Kehlet H, Joshi GP. Enhanced recovery after surgery: current controversies and concerns[J]. Anesth Analg, 2017, 125(6): 2154-2155. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002231.
[4]
Deng QF, Gu HY, Peng WY, et al. Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery on postoperative recovery after joint arthroplasty: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Postgrad Med J, 2018, 94(1118): 678-693. DOI:10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-136166.
[5]
Kurtz SM, Lau EC, Ong KL, et al. Which clinical and patient factors influence the national economic burden of hospital readmissions after total joint arthroplasty?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2017, 475(12): 2926-2937. DOI:10.1007/s11999-017-5244-6.
[6]
Chow J, Penenberg B, Murphy S. Modified micro-superior percutaneously-assisted total hip: early experiences & case reports[J]. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2011, 4(3): 146-150. DOI:10.1007/s12178-011-9090-y.
[7]
Cardenas-Nylander C, Bellotti V, Astarita E, et al. Innovative approach in total hip arthroplasty: supercapsular percutaneously-assisted[J]. Hip Int, 2016, 26(Suppl 1): 34-37. DOI:10.5301/hipint.5000409.
[8]
Chow J. SuperPath: the direct superior portal-assisted total hip approach[J]. JBJS Essent Surg Tech, 2017, 7(3): e23. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.ST.16.00061.
[9]
Pradhan R. Planar anteversion of the acetabular cup as determined from plain anteroposterior radiographs[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1999, 81(3): 431-435.
[10]
Teloken MA, Bissett G, Hozack WJ, et al. Ten to fifteen-year follow-up after total hip arthroplasty with a tapered cobalt-chromium femoral component (tri-lock) inserted without cement[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2002, 84(12): 2140-2144. DOI:10.2106/00004623-200212000-00003.
[11]
Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation[J]. Br J Anaesth, 1997, 78(5): 606-617. DOI:10.1093/bja/78.5.606.
[12]
Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes[J]. Can J Surg, 2015, 58(2): 128-139. DOI:10.1503/cjs.007214.
[13]
Della Torre PK, Fitch DA, Chow JC. Supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip arthroplasty: radiographic outcomes and surgical technique[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2015, 3(13): 180. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.08.04.
[14]
Chow J, Fitch DA. In-hospital costs for total hip replacement performed using the supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip replacement surgical technique[J]. Int Orthop, 2017, 41(6): 1119-1123. DOI:10.1007/s00264-016-3327-8.
[15]
Xie J, Zhang H, Wang L, et al. Comparison of supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach total hip versus conventional posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2017, 12(1): 138. DOI:10.1186/s13018-017-0636-6.
[16]
Chow J, Fitch DA. In-hospital costs for total hip replacement performed using the supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip replacement surgical technique[J]. Int Orthop, 2017, 41(6): 1119-1123. DOI:10.1007/s00264-016-3327-8.
[17]
Gofton W, Fitch DA. In-hospital cost comparison between the standard lateral and supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip surgical techniques for total hip replacement[J]. Int Orthop, 2016, 40(3): 481-485. DOI:10.1007/s00264-015-2878-4.
Rasuli KJ, Gofton W. Percutaneously assisted total hip (PATH) and Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) arthroplasty: learning curves and early outcomes[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2015, 3(13): 179. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.08.02.
2019, Vol. 24 
