Effect of percutaneous assisted approach on functional rehabilitation for total hip replacement compared to anterolateral approach: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Claudia Hendrickx, Willem De Hertogh, Ulrike Van Daele, Peter Mertens, Gaetane Stassijns, Claudia Hendrickx, Willem De Hertogh, Ulrike Van Daele, Peter Mertens, Gaetane Stassijns

Abstract

Background: The anterolateral approach is a commonly used technique for total hip replacement. It requires the detachment of a large part of the gluteus medius muscle. However, it is known that this muscle has a great impact on hip stability. Using the percutaneous assisted approach the damage to the gluteus medius can be limited. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of the percutaneous assisted approach with the anterolateral approach on postoperative functional outcome.

Methods/design: This study uses a prospective, randomized, parallel-group design with blinded assessment and unblinded treatment to compare the percutaneous assisted approach with the anterolateral approach in total hip replacement surgery. The postoperative results of patients operated on using the percutaneous assisted approach will be compared with those of patients operated on using the anterolateral approach. Prior to surgery patients will undergo baseline measurements. These will consist of gluteus medius measurements (surface-electromyography, strength measurements of abductors and quadriceps and the Trendelenburg test), questionnaires (Oxford Hip Score and 36-item Short Form Health Survey) and functional measures (the Timed Get-Up-and-Go test, Five times Sit-to-Stand test and Six-Minute Walk test). These measurements will be repeated four and 12 weeks after surgery. After surgery both groups will receive usual care.

Discussion: The gluteus medius is the main stabilizer of the hip joint. Therefore, we assume that functional outcome and gluteus medius function of patients after the percutaneous assisted approach will be better than after the anterolateral approach.

Trial registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 8 January 2014, registration number: NCT02032017.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percutaneous assisted approach, side view.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percutaneous assisted approach, top view.

References

    1. Scheerlinck TDP, Casteleyn PP. European hip arthroplasty: a survey in university hospitals. Hospital. 2003;5:49–53.
    1. De Béthune XBJ, Van Dooren J, Gillet P, Ackaert K. Totale heupprothese in Belgie: Een gedetailleerde analyse van de praktijken en resultaten inzake totale heupprothese: en wat daarna? [Total hip replacement in Belgium: A detailed analysis of practice and results regarding total hip replacement: and what after that?] CM-informatie. 2011;245:20–24.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Isaksson F. Patient relevant outcome 7 years after total hip replacement for OA - a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-47.
    1. Vissers MM, Bussmann JB, Verhaar JA, Arends LR, Furlan AD, Reijman M. Recovery of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Phys Ther. 2011;91:615–629. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100201.
    1. Rasch A, Bystrom AH, Dalen N, Martinez-Carranza N, Berg HE. Persisting muscle atrophy two years after replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91:583–588. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B5.21477.
    1. Edmunds CT, Boscainos PJ. Effect of surgical approach for total hip replacement on hip function using Harris Hip scores and Trendelenburg’s test: a retrospective analysis. Surgeon. 2011;9:124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2010.08.014.
    1. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Keating ME, Faris PM, Meding JB. A clinical comparison of the anterolateral and posterolateral approaches to the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;Apr:95–99. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200104000-00016.
    1. Vicar AJ, Coleman CR. A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;Sep:152–159.
    1. Roberts JM, Fu FH, McClain EJ, Ferguson AB., Jr A comparison of the posterolateral and anterolateral approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;Jul-Aug:205–210.
    1. Correa TA, Crossley KM, Kim HJ, Pandy MG. Contributions of individual muscles to hip joint contact force in normal walking. J Biomech. 2010;43:1618–1622. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.008.
    1. Al-Hayani A. The functional anatomy of hip abductors. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009;68:98–103.
    1. Gottschalk F, Kourosh S, Leveau B. The functional anatomy of tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius and minimus. J Anat. 1989;166:179–189.
    1. Dwyer MK, Stafford K, Mattacola CG, Uhl TL, Giordani M. Comparison of gluteus medius muscle activity during functional tasks in individuals with and without osteoarthritis of the hip joint. Clin Biomech. 2013;28:757–761. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.07.007.
    1. Norcross MF, Blackburn JT, Goerger BM. Reliability and interpretation of single leg stance and maximum voluntary isometric contraction methods of electromyography normalization. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010;20:420–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.08.003.
    1. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10:361–374. doi: 10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00027-4.
    1. Schaubert KL, Bohannon RW. Reliability and validity of three strength measures obtained from community-dwelling elderly persons. J Strength Condit Res. 2005;19:717–720.
    1. Hardcastle P, Nade S. The significance of the Trendelenburg test. J Bone Joint Surg. 1985;67:741–746.
    1. Roussel NA, Nijs J, Truijen S, Smeuninx L, Stassijns G. Low back pain: clinimetric properties of the Trendelenburg test, active straight leg raise test, and breathing pattern during active straight leg raising. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2007;30:270–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.03.001.
    1. Gosens T, Hoefnagels NH, de Vet RC, Dhert WJ, van Langelaan EJ, Bulstra SK, Geesink RG. The “Oxford Heup Score”: the translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:204–211. doi: 10.1080/00016470510030580.
    1. Arden NK, Kiran A, Judge A, Biant LC, Javaid MK, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Cooper C, Field RE. What is a good patient reported outcome after total hip replacement? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.10.004.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S, Reeves B, Murray DW, Hannen D, Rigge M, Williams O, Gregg P. The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care. 2000;9:146–150. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.3.146.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care. 1996;5:81–88. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.2.81.
    1. Busija L, Osborne RH, Nilsdotter A, Buchbinder R, Roos EM. Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Out. 2008;6:55. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-55.
    1. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–1068. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00097-3.
    1. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148.
    1. Yeung TS, Wessel J, Stratford PW, MacDermid JC. The timed up and go test for use on an inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:410–417. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2657.
    1. Tiedemann A, Shimada H, Sherrington C, Murray S, Lord S. The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2008;37:430–435. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn100.
    1. Zhang F, Ferrucci L, Culham E, Metter EJ, Guralnik J, Deshpande N. Performance on five times sit-to-stand task as a predictor of subsequent falls and disability in older persons. J Aging Health. 2013;25:478–492. doi: 10.1177/0898264313475813.
    1. Bohannon RW. Test-retest reliability of the five-repetition sit-to-stand test: a systematic review of the literature involving adults. J Strength Condit Res. 2011;25:3205–3207. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234e59f.
    1. Ritchie C, Trost SG, Brown W, Armit C. Reliability and validity of physical fitness field tests for adults aged 55 to 70 years. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8:61–70. doi: 10.1016/S1440-2440(05)80025-8.
    1. Goldberg A. The five-times-sit-to-stand-test (FTSST), the short version of the activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale, and fear of falling predict step execution time (SET) in older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;54:434–438. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2011.06.017.
    1. Laboratories ATSCoPSfCPF ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:111–117. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102.
    1. Harada ND, Chiu V, Stewart AL. Mobility-related function in older adults: assessment with a 6-minute walk test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:837–841. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90236-8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe