25
1 Minimally Invasive Total Hip Replacement (MITHR) Students: For: Guntis Balodis, Against: Andris Džeriņš Mentor: Asoc. Prof. Pēteris Studers

Minimally invasive total hip replacement

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

1

Minimally Invasive Total Hip Replacement (MITHR)

Students:

For: Guntis Balodis,

Against: Andris Džeriņš

Mentor: Asoc. Prof. Pēteris Studers

Page 2: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

2

Total hip replacement has been termed as «Operation of Century» as it has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced hip disorders1

In 1890, Gluck in Germany reported first total hip replacement from ivory2

In 1960s low friction arthroplasty procedures developed by Sir John Charnley2

Introduction

1. Learmonth DI, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. The Lancet

2007;370:1508-19.

2. Bhan S, Pankaj A. History and evolution of hip arthroplasty. Bhan S, Malhotra R (Ed). Key Issues in Hip

Arthropasty. New Delhi. Mediworld publications 2007.pp.4-10.

Page 3: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

3

In 2003 Berger popularized the idea of MITHR1

Prof. Frederick Laude in Paris adapted the anterior approach and modified the traction table and tissue retractors to create a truly “minimally invasive approach” 13 years ago1

History of MITHR

1. http://kog.net.au/hip/anterior-minimally-invasive-hip-replacement-surgery-amis-thr

Page 4: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

4

Minimally invasive technique- total hip replacement performed through an incision that is less than 10 cm in length (6-10cm)

Minimally invasive THA involves a modified surgical dissection that uses internervous planes while minimising any tendon or muscle trauma during the exposure1

Introduction

1. Single-incision, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: length doesn't matter. de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Zalzal P,

Winemaker MJ J Arthroplasty. 2004 Dec; 19(8):945-50.

Page 5: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

5

MITHR: anterolateral approach

Dtsch Arztebl 2006; 103(49):A3333–9 www.aerzteblatt.de

Page 6: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

6

MITHR: posterior approach

Dtsch Arztebl 2006; 103(49):A3333–9 www.aerzteblatt.de

Page 7: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

7

MITHR: direct two-incision approach

Dtsch Arztebl 2006; 103(49):A3333–9 www.aerzteblatt.de

Page 8: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

8

The incision lenght

Total hip arthroplasty through the mini-incision (Micro-hip) approach versus the

standard transgluteal (Bauer) approach: a prospective, randomised study. J

Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Aug;22(2):168-72.

13,4 cm

9,3 cm

Page 9: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

9

MITHR is not suitable for all patients1:Elderly patients

Overweight patients (BMI >30)

Severe acetabular dysplasia

Severe acetabular protrusion

Previous hip operations

Severe hip contracture

Muscular patients

Patient Characteristics for MITHR

1. http://www.arthritis-health.com/surgery/hip-surgery/minimally-invasive-hip-replacement-vs-traditional-hip-replacement

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/858818

Page 10: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

10

Tissue trauma is similar between the groups by assesing cytokine level (Ogonda et al. and Chimento et al. 2012)

Mow et al. Skin and soft tissue damage is caused by the high retractor pressure required for the MIS exposure1

Damage to surrounding tissue

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000333-technique

1. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and

meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;

35(2): 173–184.

Page 11: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

11

Surgery time

J Arthroplasty. 2014 Oct;29(10):1970-82. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.021. Epub 2014 Jun 3.

Minimally invasive surgery

+5 min

Standart approach

+12 min

Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013 Dec; 5(4): e31

Page 13: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

13

There were no statistically significant differences between the exposure methods during THA for complications such as:

infection rates

intra- or postoperative fracture

dislocation rate

deep vein thrombosis

haematoma formation

wound complications

component loosening

Complication rates I

Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-

analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Int Orthop. 2011 Feb; 35(2):

173–184.

Page 14: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

14

Complication rates II

MI technique has a five times greater rate of iatrogenic lateral femoral cutaneous nerve palsy (p < 0.0001) 1

Femoral nerve palsy may be associated with retractor position2

Reduced operative visibility may increase the potential for nerve injury1

1. Yoon TR, Park KS, Song EK, Seon JK, Seo HY. New two-incision minimally invasive total hip

arthroplasty: comparison with the one-incision method. J Orthop Sci. 2009;14:155–160. doi:

10.1007/s00776-008-1305-8.2. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and

meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;

35(2): 173–184.

http

://im

g.m

edsc

apes

tatic

.com

/pi/m

eds/

ckb/

54/2

9654

tn.jp

g

Page 15: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

15

There was no statistically significant difference between the exposure method in respect to:

WOMAC score (p = 0.13)Harris hip score (p=0.06)Oxford Hip score(p = 0.29)SF-36 physical function (p=0.69)

Clinical outcomes

2. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and

meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;

35(2): 173–184.

Page 16: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

16

6 weeks – 2 years after surgery

6 weeks 12 weeks 1 year 2 years0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Standart lateral

VAS pain at motion Harris VAS satisfaction

Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013 Dec; 5(4): e31.

[0-10] [0-10] [0-10]

Page 17: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

17

6 weeks 12 weeks 1 year 2 years0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Minimally invasive

VAS pain at motion Harris VAS satisfaction

6 weeks – 2 years after surgery

Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013 Dec; 5(4): e31.

[0-10] [0-10] [0-10]

Page 18: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

18

Repantis et al. 2014. On discharge, postoperative hematocrit lower in conventional THA patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08)

There was no statistical significant difference in the amount of blood units transfused in the two groups (p = 0.67).

Blood-loss

Repantis T, Korovessis PG. Comparison of minimally invasive approach versus conventional

anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. E J of Orth Surg. Feb 2014.

Page 19: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

19

Blood-loss

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Apr; 471(4): 1283–1294.

Minimally invasive surgery

+73 ml

Minimally

invasive

surgery

+59 ml

J Arthroplasty. 2014 Oct;29(10):1970-82. doi: 10.1016

Page 20: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

20

Woolson et al. 2004. The posterolateral MI group was had a higher percentage of acetabular component malposition (p = 0.04), and poor fit and fill of femoral components (p = 0.004)1

Radiological outcomes

1. 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 Joint Surg.

2004;86:1353–1358.

2. Kim YH (2006) Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive

technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. J Arthroplasty 21: 1092–

1098.

Kim YH 2006. Femoral offset was significantly increased ( p =

0.02) involving the posterolateral approach2

http

s://o

peni

.nlm

.nih

.gov

/det

aile

dres

ult.p

hp?i

mg=

PM

C31

4398

2_or

-200

9-2-

e27-

g002

&re

q=4

Page 23: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

23

The learning curve of the MI anterior approach is more than 46-100 patients

During this learning curve, the complication rate is higher because of the technical difficulties

The complication rate is twice as high for surgeons who perform fewer than 50 MITHRs a year1

Learning curve I

1. Y.M. den Hartog & S.B.W. Vehmeijer (2013) High complication rate in the early

experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior

approach, Acta Orthopaedica, 84:1, 116-117

Page 24: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

24

MITHR, when performed by an experienced surgeon, can have results equivalent to conventional THR1

While MITHR can be safe and effective, the evidence does not support making it the standard of care1

The choice of operative approach depends on surgeon preference and experience2

Conclusions

1. A Henderson, J Grahame. Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Internet Journal of

Academic Physician Assistants. 2008 Volume 7 Number 1.

2. Medscape- Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2000333-overview?

pa=URmJ1OJ6kpGaWAiWnspY9Td01cngGy7K0Xf%2FM3gwc%2BD

%2Fm65xAqLuxe5rW4NwbmwdVrJxKJt4DRD8mxYr6kYfOw%3D%3D

Page 25: Minimally invasive total hip replacement

25

Thank You for Your Attention!