PRELIMINARY CLINICAL APPLICATION OF SL-PLUS MIA FEMORAL STEM PROSTHESIS IN TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

WEI Bo , WANG Liming , JIN Chengzhe , XU Yan.

Department of Orthopaedics, Nanjing Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University (the First Hospital of Nanjing), Nanjing Jiangsu, 210006, P.R.China. Corresponding author: WANG Liming, E-mail: limingwang99@yahoo.com;

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

Total hip arthroplasty; SL-PLUS MIA femoral stem prosthesis; SL-PLUS prosthesis; Minimally invasive surgery

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate the short-term effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with SL-PLUS MIA femoral stem prosthesis by comparing with the SL-PLUS prosthesis. Methods Retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 33 patients (38 hips) undergoing THA with SL-PLUS MIA femoral stem prosthesis (trial group) between June and December 2011, which was compared with those of 35 patients (40 hips) with SL-PLUS prosthesis (control group) during the same period. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, etiology, preoperative range of motion (ROM) of hip, and preoperative Harris score between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The incision length, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss were recorded during operation. The improvement of hip joint function was evaluated according to Harris score criteria. The ROM of hip was measured, and the X-ray film was taken to observe the position of prosthesis. Results Trial group had shorter incision length, less operation time, and less intraoperative blood loss than control group, showing significant differences (P lt; 0.05). All wounds healed by first intention. All patients were followed up 10-16 months (mean, 13.6 months). During follow-up, 5 cases (5 hips) of control group and 3 cases (3 hips) of trial group still had pain of hips. At last follow-up, the ROM of hip was (152.48 ± 9.68)° in trial group and (152.16 ± 8.18)° in control group, the Harris score was 91.4 ± 2.9 in trial group and 90.9 ± 1.8 in control group; there were significant differences when compared with preoperative values (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). X-ray films showed good position of the prosthesis with no displacement, loosening, or subsidence in both groups. Conclusion SL-PLUS MIA femoral stem prosthesis has less surgical trauma and blood loss than SL-PLUS prosthesis during THA. The short-term effectiveness is satisfactory, but the long-term effectiveness still needs further observation.

Citation： WEI Bo,WANG Liming,JIN Chengzhe,XU Yan.. PRELIMINARY CLINICAL APPLICATION OF SL-PLUS MIA FEMORAL STEM PROSTHESIS IN TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013, 27(3): 283-287. doi: Copy

1.	Martin R, Clayson PE, Troussel S, et al. Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year. J Arthroplasty, 2011, 26(8): 1362-1372.
2.	Pflüger G, Junk-Jantsch S, Schöll V. Minimally invasive total hip replacement via the anterolateral approach in the supine position. Int Orthop, 2007, 31 Suppl 1: S7-11.
3.	Roger DJ, Hill D. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a transpiriformis approach: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(8): 2227-2234.
4.	Sendtner E, Schuster T, Wörner M, et al. Accuracy of acetabular cup placement in computer-assisted, minimally-invasive THR in a lateral decubitus position. Int Orthop, 2011, 35(6): 809-815.
5.	Labek G, Kovac S, Levasic V, et al. The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop, 2012, 36(6): 1149-1154.
6.	Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 1969, 51(4): 737-755.
7.	Wenz JF, Gurkan I, Jibodh SR. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a comparative assessment of perioperative outcomes. Orthopedics, 2002, 25(10): 1031-1043.
8.	Barrack RL. The mini-incision: occasionally desirable, but rarely necessary. Orthopedics, 2004, 27(9): 936, 945.
9.	Hallert O, Li Y, Brismar H, et al. The direct anterior approach: initial experience of a minimally invasive technique for total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res, 2012, 7: 17.
10.	Schleicher I, Haas H, Adams TS, et al. Minimal-invasive posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty versus standard lateral approach. Acta Orthop Belg, 2011, 77(4): 480-487.
11.	孙仕华, 王栓科, 赵琳, 等. 后外侧入路传统及微创人工全髋关节置换术对比研究. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2009, 23(6): 641-643.
12.	Yoon TR, Park KS, Song EK, et al. New two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: comparison with the one-incision method. J Orthop Sci, 2009, 14(2): 155-160.
13.	张先龙, 沈灏, 畦述平, 等. 双切口微创人工全髋关节置换术. 中华骨科杂志, 2005, 25(5): 268-270.
14.	Noble PC, Pflüger G, Junk-Jantsch S, et al. The optimal skin incision for minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty performed via the anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty, 2012, 27(6): 901-908.
15.	Bertin KC, Röttinger H. Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, (429): 248-255.
16.	吴若, 徐耀增, 耿德春, 等. 改良Watson-Jones入路与改良Hardinge入路全髋关节置换术的疗效比较. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2011, 13(11): 1003-1007.
17.	Waddell JP, Morton J, Schemitsch EH. The role of total hip replacement in intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, (429): 49-53.
18.	Sidhu AS, Singh AP, Singh AP, et al. Total hip replacement as primary treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop, 2010, 34(6): 789-792.
19.	Fan L, Dang X, Wang K. Comparison between bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly osteoporotic patients. PLoS One, 2012, 7(6): e39531.

1. Martin R, Clayson PE, Troussel S, et al. Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year. J Arthroplasty, 2011, 26(8): 1362-1372.
2. Pflüger G, Junk-Jantsch S, Schöll V. Minimally invasive total hip replacement via the anterolateral approach in the supine position. Int Orthop, 2007, 31 Suppl 1: S7-11.
3. Roger DJ, Hill D. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a transpiriformis approach: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(8): 2227-2234.
4. Sendtner E, Schuster T, Wörner M, et al. Accuracy of acetabular cup placement in computer-assisted, minimally-invasive THR in a lateral decubitus position. Int Orthop, 2011, 35(6): 809-815.
5. Labek G, Kovac S, Levasic V, et al. The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop, 2012, 36(6): 1149-1154.
6. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 1969, 51(4): 737-755.
7. Wenz JF, Gurkan I, Jibodh SR. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a comparative assessment of perioperative outcomes. Orthopedics, 2002, 25(10): 1031-1043.
8. Barrack RL. The mini-incision: occasionally desirable, but rarely necessary. Orthopedics, 2004, 27(9): 936, 945.
9. Hallert O, Li Y, Brismar H, et al. The direct anterior approach: initial experience of a minimally invasive technique for total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res, 2012, 7: 17.
10. Schleicher I, Haas H, Adams TS, et al. Minimal-invasive posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty versus standard lateral approach. Acta Orthop Belg, 2011, 77(4): 480-487.
11. 孙仕华, 王栓科, 赵琳, 等. 后外侧入路传统及微创人工全髋关节置换术对比研究. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2009, 23(6): 641-643.
12. Yoon TR, Park KS, Song EK, et al. New two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: comparison with the one-incision method. J Orthop Sci, 2009, 14(2): 155-160.
13. 张先龙, 沈灏, 畦述平, 等. 双切口微创人工全髋关节置换术. 中华骨科杂志, 2005, 25(5): 268-270.
14. Noble PC, Pflüger G, Junk-Jantsch S, et al. The optimal skin incision for minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty performed via the anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty, 2012, 27(6): 901-908.
15. Bertin KC, Röttinger H. Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, (429): 248-255.
16. 吴若, 徐耀增, 耿德春, 等. 改良Watson-Jones入路与改良Hardinge入路全髋关节置换术的疗效比较. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2011, 13(11): 1003-1007.
17. Waddell JP, Morton J, Schemitsch EH. The role of total hip replacement in intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, (429): 49-53.
18. Sidhu AS, Singh AP, Singh AP, et al. Total hip replacement as primary treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop, 2010, 34(6): 789-792.
19. Fan L, Dang X, Wang K. Comparison between bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly osteoporotic patients. PLoS One, 2012, 7(6): e39531.

Previous Article
TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY WITH DOUBLE-TAPERED CEMENTLESS FEMORAL STEM FOR HIP BONY FUSION
Next Article
EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON BETWEEN ARTHROSCOPIC AND OPEN ANKLE ARTHRODESES /

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

PRELIMINARY CLINICAL APPLICATION OF SL-PLUS MIA FEMORAL STEM PROSTHESIS IN TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content