Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of the Anterolateral and Regular Approaches for Hip Joint Puncture: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-23 DOI:10.1111/os.70155
Jiamu Liu, Jingjie Huang, Yiling Tan, Chunmei Liu, Jing Li, Wen Sui, Xing Hua, Tiao Su, Guangxing Chen
{"title":"Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of the Anterolateral and Regular Approaches for Hip Joint Puncture: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial.","authors":"Jiamu Liu, Jingjie Huang, Yiling Tan, Chunmei Liu, Jing Li, Wen Sui, Xing Hua, Tiao Su, Guangxing Chen","doi":"10.1111/os.70155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given the limitations of conventional anterior and lateral approaches, such as variable success rates and risks of neurovascular injury, there is a critical need to evaluate alternative techniques that enhance procedural safety and efficiency. This study aimed to investigate the safety and precision of the anterolateral approach for hip joint puncture and compare its clinical efficacy with those of the anterior and lateral approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center, prospective, randomized Williams crossover trial was conducted from March 2023 to June 2023 involving 30 patients with hip pain. Each patient underwent three hip joint punctures within 3 weeks, all conducted using anatomical landmark-guided blind puncture. The punctures were administered in different sequences of anterior, anterolateral, and lateral approaches, with one-week intervals between punctures. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to six groups (n = 5), following different sequences of the three approaches. The primary outcomes were the success rate and accuracy, and the secondary outcomes were post-puncture pain assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), procedure time, puncture depth, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The anterolateral approach achieved a higher success rate (96.7%) compared to the anterior (86.7%) and lateral (83.3%) approaches; although statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.328). Besides, it significantly shortened procedure duration (72.87 s, SD 9.66) compared to anterior (87.20 s, SD 20.57) and lateral (92.80 s, SD 39.02) approaches (p = 0.006). The puncture path length was shorter with the anterolateral approach (57.77 mm, SD 1.295) than with the lateral approach (63.33 mm, SD 1.295) (p = 0.004). The anterolateral approach achieved lower VAS pain scores (1.77, SD 0.94) compared to the lateral approach (2.90, SD 2.17). During the anterior approach injection, one patient experienced numbness in the lateral thigh of the surgical side.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This preliminary randomized crossover trial demonstrates that the anterolateral approach offers significant advantages in procedural efficiency (reduced time, shorter path length) and suggests a trend toward higher success rates compared to standard anterior and lateral approaches for hip joint puncture. These findings, particularly the improvements in efficiency and patient comfort (lower VAS), support the anterolateral approach as an effective technique.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>I, Randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR2300074174.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2903-2913"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12497558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Given the limitations of conventional anterior and lateral approaches, such as variable success rates and risks of neurovascular injury, there is a critical need to evaluate alternative techniques that enhance procedural safety and efficiency. This study aimed to investigate the safety and precision of the anterolateral approach for hip joint puncture and compare its clinical efficacy with those of the anterior and lateral approaches.

Methods: A single-center, prospective, randomized Williams crossover trial was conducted from March 2023 to June 2023 involving 30 patients with hip pain. Each patient underwent three hip joint punctures within 3 weeks, all conducted using anatomical landmark-guided blind puncture. The punctures were administered in different sequences of anterior, anterolateral, and lateral approaches, with one-week intervals between punctures. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to six groups (n = 5), following different sequences of the three approaches. The primary outcomes were the success rate and accuracy, and the secondary outcomes were post-puncture pain assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), procedure time, puncture depth, and complications.

Results: The anterolateral approach achieved a higher success rate (96.7%) compared to the anterior (86.7%) and lateral (83.3%) approaches; although statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.328). Besides, it significantly shortened procedure duration (72.87 s, SD 9.66) compared to anterior (87.20 s, SD 20.57) and lateral (92.80 s, SD 39.02) approaches (p = 0.006). The puncture path length was shorter with the anterolateral approach (57.77 mm, SD 1.295) than with the lateral approach (63.33 mm, SD 1.295) (p = 0.004). The anterolateral approach achieved lower VAS pain scores (1.77, SD 0.94) compared to the lateral approach (2.90, SD 2.17). During the anterior approach injection, one patient experienced numbness in the lateral thigh of the surgical side.

Conclusion: This preliminary randomized crossover trial demonstrates that the anterolateral approach offers significant advantages in procedural efficiency (reduced time, shorter path length) and suggests a trend toward higher success rates compared to standard anterior and lateral approaches for hip joint puncture. These findings, particularly the improvements in efficiency and patient comfort (lower VAS), support the anterolateral approach as an effective technique.

Level of evidence: I, Randomized controlled trial.

Trial registration: chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR2300074174.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

髋关节穿刺前外侧入路与常规入路的临床疗效比较:一项随机交叉试验。
目的:考虑到传统的前路和侧路入路的局限性,如不同的成功率和神经血管损伤的风险,迫切需要评估可提高手术安全性和效率的替代技术。本研究旨在探讨前外侧入路进行髋关节穿刺的安全性和精确性,并比较其与前外侧入路的临床疗效。方法:于2023年3月至2023年6月进行了一项单中心、前瞻性、随机Williams交叉试验,涉及30例髋关节疼痛患者。每位患者在3周内进行了3次髋关节穿刺,均采用解剖地标引导盲穿刺。穿刺采用不同顺序的前路、前外侧和外侧入路,穿刺间隔一周。30例患者随机分为6组(n = 5),采用三种入路的不同顺序。主要结果是成功率和准确性,次要结果是使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估穿刺后疼痛、手术时间、穿刺深度和并发症。结果:前外侧入路手术成功率(96.7%)高于前路(86.7%)和外侧入路(83.3%);虽然没有达到统计学意义(p = 0.328)。此外,与前路(87.20 s, SD 20.57)和侧路(92.80 s, SD 39.02)入路(p = 0.006)相比,手术时间(72.87 s, SD 9.66)显著缩短(p = 0.006)。前外侧入路穿刺路径长度(57.77 mm, SD 1.295)短于外侧入路(63.33 mm, SD 1.295) (p = 0.004)。与外侧入路(2.90,SD 2.17)相比,前外侧入路的VAS疼痛评分较低(1.77,SD 0.94)。在前路注射时,1例患者手术侧大腿外侧出现麻木。结论:这项初步的随机交叉试验表明,与标准的前路和外侧入路相比,前外侧入路在手术效率(缩短时间,缩短路径长度)方面具有显著优势,并且表明在髋关节穿刺中有更高成功率的趋势。这些发现,特别是在效率和患者舒适度(较低的VAS)方面的改善,支持前外侧入路是一种有效的技术。证据等级:I,随机对照试验。试验注册:chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR2300074174。
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
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信