cadera / hip - Active Congress.......

MIÉRCOLES / WEDNESDAY
128
niques) of Wound Complication,
Acetabular Component Malposition,
Poor Femoral Component
Fit / Fill
4. Archibeck & White, CORR, 2004
a. Two-Incision Technique
b. 851 Cases Performed By 159 Surgeons
Trained In The Technique
c. Complications Did Not Decrease As
More Experience Gained
d. 27 Nerve Palsies (3.2%)
e. 35 Femoral Neck Fractures (4.1%)
f. 11 Femoral Shaft Fractures (1.3%)
g. 9 Greater Trochanteric Fractures
(1.1%)
h. 7 Femoral Cortical Perforations
(0.8%)
i. Therefore, 62 Cases Of Femoral Fracture
Or Perforation (7.3%)
5. Pagnano, M. & Trousdale, Hip Society,
2005
a. Measured Muscle Damage Following
MIS THA With Two-Incision Vs.
Mini-Posterior Approaches
b. Substantial Damage To Abductor
Musculature Found In Both Approaches
(Greater With The
Two-Incision Approach)
5. Relative Contraindications
a. Substantial Obesity
b. Previous Hip Surgery / Retained Hardware
c. Large Muscular Males
i. Large Gluteal Muscles
ii. Tight Iliotibial Band
d. Severe Deformity
i. DDH / High Grade SCFE / Proximal
Femoral Deformity
ii. Severe Acetabular Protrusio
iii. Marked Preoperative Flexion and External
Rotation Contractures
6. Summary
a. Mini-Posterior Approaches Offer Potential
For Reduced Soft Tissue Dissection and
Rapid Recovery
b. Technically More Demanding
c. Rigid Fixation and Accurate Implant Positioning
Remain Paramount
d. Always Focus More On The 15 Year, NOT
THE 15 DAY RESULT.
Bibliography
1. deBeer J, Petruccelli D, Zalzal P, Winemaker
MJ: Single-incision, minimally invasive
total hip arthroplasty: length doesn’t matter.
J. Arthroplasty, 19(8):945-50, 2004.
2. Timm S: Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty:
what is it all about? J Contin
Educ Nurs, 35:246-6, 2004
3. Dorr LD: Comment on: The appeal of
mini-incision. Orthopedics, 27(9):937-8,
2004.
4. Barrack RL: Comment on: The mini-incision:
occasionally desirable, but rarely
necessary. Orthopedics, 27(9):937-8,
2004.
5. Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B: Mini-incision
anterior approach does not increase
dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip
replacements. Clin Orthop. 426:164-73,
2004.
6. Wright JM, et al.,: Mini-incision for total
hip arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled
investigation with 5-year follow-up evaluation.
J. Arthroplasty 19(5):538-45, 2004.
7. Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin
JV, Schurman DJ: Comparison of primary
total hip replacements performed with
a standard incision or a mini-incision. J
Bone J Surg Am. 86-A: 1353-8, 2004.
8. Hungerford DS: Comment on: Minimally
invasive total hip arthroplasty: in opposition.
J. Arthroplasty, 19(4 Suppl 1) 78-80,
2004.
9. Nakamura S, Matsuda K, Arai N, Wakimotot
N, Matsushita T: Mini-incision posterior
approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int
Orthop. 28(4): 214-7, 2004.
10. Digioia AM 3rd, Blendea S, Jaramaz B,
Levinson TJ: Less invasive total hip arthroplasty
using navigational tools. Instr.
Course Lect 53:157-64, 2004.
11. Berger RA: The technique of minimally
invasive total hip arthroplasty using the