Dr. Mohd Danish,
Department of Othopedics, Max Superspeciality Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail: danish.shan@gmail.com
Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered to be one of the most successful orthopaedic interventions of its generation. Joint replacement (arthroplasty) as a surgical option for end stage arthritis is well established now and millions of patients across the world have benefited. India is a country of 1.4 billion people with significant knee and hip arthritis population. According to Frost and Sullivan research, 70,000 joint replacement surgeries were performed in India in the year 2011. The most common cause of chronic hip pain and disability is arthritis. Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and traumatic arthritis are the most common forms of this disease.
Aims of Study: To compare post-operative outcome as implant positioning in terms of abduction angle of the cup & rehabilitation based on Harris Hip Score at 2 months and 4 months respectively in different approaches of approach of total hip replacement.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the department of Orthopaedics at Max Super specialty hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP after receiving clearance from the Ethical Committee of the institution. It was a randomized case control study. Two different groups of 32 patients each were evaluated and inclination of acetabular cup was calculated on plain radiograph, subsequently the rehabilitation was also evaluated on basis of Harris Hip score in these patients.
Results: In the present study, it was observed that mean postoperative abduction angle in Group A 47.82 ±6.87 and Group B was 51.19 ±7.21 degree respectively. The mean postoperative abduction angle in Group A was less compared to Group B with statistical significance. (P<0.05) In the present study, it was observed that intergroup comparison of mean Harris hip score post-operative at discharge, at 2 months & 4 months in Group A and Group B showed no statistical significance. (P>0.05) The intragroup comparison of mean Harris hip score post-operative at discharge, 2 months and 4 months in Group A and Group B showed statistical significance. (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Present study revealed a significant statistical difference on intragroup comparison of inclination angle and rehabilitation based on Harris Hip Score in both the groups.
Keywords: Arthroplasty, Harris Hip Score, Angle of Inclination.
References
- 1. Charnley J. Total hip replacement by low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1970;72:7-21. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:1386-97. [Google Scholar]
- 3. ”Inpatient Surgery”. FastStats. National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and\ Prevention. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1487-97. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: A systematic review. Open Orthop J 2011;5:80-5. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Morrey BF. A historical perspective of hip arthroplasty and reconstructive surgery. In: Cashman J, Goyal N, Parvizi J, editors. The Hip: Preservation, Replacement and Revision. Brooklandville, MD: Data Trace Publishing Company; 2015. p. 1.1-1.19. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Dislocations after total hip – replacement arthroplasties G E Lewinnek, J L Lewis, R Tarr, C L Compere, J R Zimmerman 1978 Mar;60(2):217-20 , PMID: 641088. [Google Scholar]
- 8. DiGioia A III, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:123–128 [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chimento G, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20:139–144. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35:137–142. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Nakamura S, Matsuda K, Arai N, Wakimoto N, Matsushita T. Mini-incision posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2004; 28:214–217. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O_Brien S, Beverland D. A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg (Am) 2005; 87:701–710. [Google Scholar]
- 13. 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 Jt Surg (Am) 2004; 86:1353–1358. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ozaki Y, Baba T, Homma Y, Ochi H, Watari T, Banno S, Matsumoto M, Kaneko K. Posterior versus direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12. SICOT-2018; J, 4, 54. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Laffosse JM, Chiron P, Molinier F, Bensafi H, Puget J. Prospective and comparative study of the anterolateral mini-invasive approach versus minimally invasive posterior approach for primary total hip replacement. Early results. International orthopaedics. 2007 Oct;31(5):597-603. [Google Scholar]