SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beverland, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beverland, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of early postoperative functional levels following total hip replacement using minimally invasive versus standard incisions. A prospective randomized blinded trial

Marie Lawlor

Patricia Humphreys

Esther Morrow

Physiotherapy Department, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Luke Ogonda

Orthopaedic Outcomes Unit, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Damien Bennett

David Elliott

Gait Analysis Laboratory, Belfast, Northern Ireland

David Beverland

Orthopaedic Outcomes Unit, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Objective: To compare the results of single-incision minimally invasive total hip replacement (≤ 10 cm) to standard-incision (16 cm) total hip replacement in the early postoperative period with respect to functional and mobilizing ability (transfers, mobilizing, walking and stair assessment).

Setting: Orthopaedic wards of a regional orthopaedic centre.

Subjects: Two hundred and nineteen total hip replacement patients were tested between December 2003 and June 2004.

Interventions: Patients were randomized to either total hip replacement through a minimally invasive (≤ 10 cm) or standard incision (16 cm). A single surgeon performed all procedures using the same type of component fixation. Postoperative physiotherapy assessment and treatment was standardized. Analgesia was also standardized. All patients, physiotherapy staff and assessors were blinded to the incision used.

Main outcome measures: Patients were tested two days post operatively and were assessed for the following activities: transfer from supine to sit, transfer from sitting to standing, mobilizing, ascending and descending stairs and weight-bearing.

Results: The shorter incision offered no significant improvement in patient ability in relation to transfer from lying to sitting, transfer from sitting to standing, mobilizing or weight-bearing. Ascending/descending stairs gave a total time for the minimal incision of 38.7 s against 40.8 s for a standard incision. There was no difference in walking velocity between the standard incision and minimal incision groups two days post operatively (minimal incision = 0.26 m/s versus standard incision = 0.26 m/s) or six weeks post operatively (minimal incision = 0.90 m/s versus standard incision = 0.93 m/s). There was no difference between groups with respect to walking aids at six-week review. The mean length of stay for the minimally invasive approach was 3.65 days (SD 2.04) against 3.68 days (SD 2.45) for the standard approach. This was not significantly different.

Conclusion: Total hip replacement performed through a minimally invasive incision of ≤ 10 cm compared with a standard incision of 16 cm offers no significant benefit in terms of the rate or ability of patients to mobilize and perform functional tasks necessary for safe discharge.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 19, No. 5, 465-474 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr890oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
T. P. Vail and J. J. Callaghan
Minimal Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., December 1, 2007; 15(12): 707 - 715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br Med BullHome page
A. Mahmood, M. S. Zafar, I. Majid, N. Maffulli, and J. Thompson
Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: a quantitative review of the literature
Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2007; 84(1): 37 - 48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
L. D. Dorr, A. V. Maheshwari, W. T. Long, Z. Wan, and L. E. Sirianni
Early Pain Relief and Function After Posterior Minimally Invasive and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2007; 89(6): 1153 - 1160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
E. Mayr, M. Krismer, M. Ertl, O. Kessler, M. Thaler, and M. Nogler
Uncompromised quality of the cement mantle in Exeter femoral components implanted through a minimally-invasive direct anterior approach: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED CADAVER STUDY
J Bone Joint Surg Br, September 1, 2006; 88-B(9): 1252 - 1256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Advertisement