A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Supine and Lateral Patient Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Surgical Approach

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Christian Pearsall MD, MS , Michael Denham MD, MS , Jeremy S. Frederick MD , Omar K. Farah MD, MBA , Jakub Tatka MD , Roshan P. Shah MD JD , Jeffrey A. Geller MD
{"title":"A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Supine and Lateral Patient Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Surgical Approach","authors":"Christian Pearsall MD, MS ,&nbsp;Michael Denham MD, MS ,&nbsp;Jeremy S. Frederick MD ,&nbsp;Omar K. Farah MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Jakub Tatka MD ,&nbsp;Roshan P. Shah MD JD ,&nbsp;Jeffrey A. Geller MD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To determine any differences in clinical outcomes between patients in the supine vs the lateral position during anterior-based muscle sparing (ABMS) total hip arthroplasty (THA).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective review was performed of 368 patients undergoing THA via the ABMS approach (201 lateral vs 167 supine position) at our institution (2015-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing primary THA. Exclusion criteria were any revision surgeries and patients who did not undergo the ABMS THA. Outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, ambulation distance, length of stay, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and physical function scores at 3 time periods (preoperative, 3 months postoperative, and 1 year postoperative).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The supine group had significantly greater postoperative day 0 ambulation distance (150 vs 60 meters; <em>P</em> &lt; .001), while no difference was observed on postoperative day 1 (210 meters in supine vs 200 in lateral; <em>P</em> = .921). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the supine group (1; interquartile range 0-1) with respect to the lateral group (1; interquartile range 0-2; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). The in-hospital complication rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .780), return to operating room rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .780), and readmission rates (5.4% in supine vs 5.0% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .631) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed across any Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both supine and lateral patient positioning provide acceptable early surgical outcomes, suggesting that satisfactory results can be obtained via both positions in THAs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 101515"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002000/pdfft?md5=0e617c0d09de8553d1718f1e0a4c4bee&pid=1-s2.0-S2352344124002000-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

To determine any differences in clinical outcomes between patients in the supine vs the lateral position during anterior-based muscle sparing (ABMS) total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 368 patients undergoing THA via the ABMS approach (201 lateral vs 167 supine position) at our institution (2015-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing primary THA. Exclusion criteria were any revision surgeries and patients who did not undergo the ABMS THA. Outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, ambulation distance, length of stay, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and physical function scores at 3 time periods (preoperative, 3 months postoperative, and 1 year postoperative).

Results

The supine group had significantly greater postoperative day 0 ambulation distance (150 vs 60 meters; P < .001), while no difference was observed on postoperative day 1 (210 meters in supine vs 200 in lateral; P = .921). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the supine group (1; interquartile range 0-1) with respect to the lateral group (1; interquartile range 0-2; P < .001). The in-hospital complication rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), return to operating room rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), and readmission rates (5.4% in supine vs 5.0% in lateral; P = .631) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed across any Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores.

Conclusions

Both supine and lateral patient positioning provide acceptable early surgical outcomes, suggesting that satisfactory results can be obtained via both positions in THAs.

采用前路肌肉疏通手术方法进行全髋关节置换术时患者仰卧位和侧卧位的术后效果比较
背景为了确定在前路肌肉疏松(ABMS)全髋关节置换术(THA)过程中,仰卧位与侧卧位患者的临床结果是否存在差异。方法对本机构(2015-2019 年)接受 ABMS 方法全髋关节置换术的 368 例患者(201 例侧卧位患者与 167 例仰卧位患者)进行了回顾性研究,随访至少 12 个月。纳入标准为所有接受初次 THA 手术的患者。排除标准为任何翻修手术和未接受 ABMS THA 的患者。评估结果包括术后并发症发生率、行走距离、住院时间,以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数在3个时间段(术前、术后3个月和术后1年)的疼痛、僵硬和身体功能评分。结果仰卧组术后第0天的行走距离明显更大(150米 vs 60米;P < .001),而术后第1天没有观察到差异(仰卧210米 vs 侧卧200米;P = .921)。仰卧组的中位住院时间(1;四分位间范围 0-1)明显短于侧卧组(1;四分位间范围 0-2;P < .001)。两组的院内并发症发生率(仰卧位 2.4% vs 侧卧位 1.5%;P = .780)、返回手术室率(仰卧位 2.4% vs 侧卧位 1.5%;P = .780)和再入院率(仰卧位 5.4% vs 侧卧位 5.0%;P = .631)无显著差异。西安大略大学和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数评分均无明显差异。结论仰卧位和侧卧位患者的早期手术效果均可接受,这表明这两种体位在 THAs 中均可获得令人满意的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arthroplasty Today
Arthroplasty Today Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
258
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信