Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
Seema Marshall
The George Washington University
Clinical Internship I







Greatest during first 3 months post-op
For anterior or lateral approaches – greatest
risk with extension & exte...
Anterolateral

Cons

Lower dislocation
rate

Preserves abductor
function

Smaller incision site

Pros

Posterior

Better r...
Approach

Rate

Posterior with soft tissue repair*

0.49-1.01%

Posterior without soft tissue
repair

4.46%

Anterior-late...
Study
Talbot et al., 2002
499 patients
Peak et al., 2005
265 patients
Ververeli et al., 2009
81 patients
Restrepo et al., ...


Faster recovery
◦ Earlier ambulation
◦ Earlier return to
driving





Increased patient
satisfaction
Less financial
b...






No increase in dislocation without
precautions for anterior approach
Dislocation rates in posterior approach with...








D’Angelo F, Murena L and Cherubino P. The unstable total
hip replacement. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 2008...
THA_Inservice
THA_Inservice
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

THA_Inservice

  • Loggen Sie sich ein, um Kommentare anzuzeigen.

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

THA_Inservice

  1. 1. Seema Marshall The George Washington University Clinical Internship I
  2. 2.     Greatest during first 3 months post-op For anterior or lateral approaches – greatest risk with extension & external rotation For posterior approach – greatest risk with excessive hip flexion & internal rotation Other risk factors: age, bone loss, RA, cognitive function, component orientation, implant design
  3. 3. Anterolateral Cons Lower dislocation rate Preserves abductor function Smaller incision site Pros Posterior Better recovery immediately post-op Abductor weakness Reportedly higher dislocation rates
  4. 4. Approach Rate Posterior with soft tissue repair* 0.49-1.01% Posterior without soft tissue repair 4.46% Anterior-lateral 0.70% Direct lateral 0.43%
  5. 5. Study Talbot et al., 2002 499 patients Peak et al., 2005 265 patients Ververeli et al., 2009 81 patients Restrepo et al., ongoing 2532 patients Rate 0.6% 0.33% 0 0.15%
  6. 6.  Faster recovery ◦ Earlier ambulation ◦ Earlier return to driving   Increased patient satisfaction Less financial burden http://www.orthopedicmo tion.com/orthotics.htm http://www.handic appedequipment.or g/tag/recommende d-toilet-seatsafter-surgery/
  7. 7.    No increase in dislocation without precautions for anterior approach Dislocation rates in posterior approach with soft tissue repair are comparable to anterior approach Need further studies to confirm safety of posterior approach without precautions
  8. 8.     D’Angelo F, Murena L and Cherubino P. The unstable total hip replacement. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 2008; 42:252-259. Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, and Saleh KJ. Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2006; 447:34-38. Restrepo C, Mortazavi SMJ, Brothers J, Parvizi J, and Rothman RH. Hip dislocation: are hip precautions necessary in anterior approaches? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(2):417-422. Palan J, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Andrew JG and Nolan J. Which approach for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467:473-477.

×