Surgical Technique: Mini-Open Approach to the Hip

Chen, Antonia F.; O’Toole, Patrick; Minori, Joshua; Parvızı, Javad

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7321-3_26-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 84 , 85 Similarly, the mini open approach demonstrates favourable outcomes after treatment for FAI, which minimizes muscle damage and reduces the traction necessary for assessing the hip joint when compared to arthroscopy. 86 Nevertheless, caution must be applied to prevent damage to the LFCN, which was evident in all our AMO studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Outcomes following surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of different surgical techniques

Addai

Zarkos

Pettit

et al. 2021

Bone & Joint Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes following different types of surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are well reported individually but comparative data are deficient. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to analyze the outcomes following surgical management of FAI by hip arthroscopy (HA), anterior mini open approach (AMO), and surgical hip dislocation (SHD). This SR was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic database search of PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE for English and German language articles over the last 20 years was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We specifically analyzed and compared changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), α-angle, rate of complications, rate of revision, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 48 articles were included for final analysis with a total of 4,384 hips in 4,094 patients. All subgroups showed a significant correction in mean α angle postoperatively with a mean change of 28.8° (95% confidence interval (CI) 21 to 36.5; p < 0.01) after AMO, 21.1° (95% CI 15.1 to 27; p < 0.01) after SHD, and 20.5° (95% CI 16.1 to 24.8; p < 0.01) after HA. The AMO group showed a significantly higher increase in PROMs (3.7; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.2; p < 0.01) versus arthroscopy (2.5; 95% CI 2.3 to 2.8; p < 0.01) and SHD (2.4; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.3; p < 0.01). However, the rate of complications following AMO was significantly higher than HA and SHD. All three surgical approaches offered significant improvements in PROMs and radiological correction of cam deformities. All three groups showed similar rates of revision procedures but SHD had the highest rate of conversion to a THA. Revision rates were similar for all three revision procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%