Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641790›Full record

ArticleOperative Orthopadie und Traumatologie2022

Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach.

Martin Thaler, Kristoff Corten, Michael Nogler, Boris Michael Holzapfel, Joseph Moskal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Martin ThalerArthroplasty Center, Helios Klinikum Munich West, Steinerweg 5, 81241, Munich, Germany. martin.thaler@i-med.ac.at.
Kristoff CortenHip Unit, Orthopedic Department, Heuppraktijk, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg Genk, Herselt, Belgium.
Michael NoglerDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology -Experimental Orthopedics, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Boris Michael HolzapfelDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Joseph MoskalDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Institute for Orthopedics and Neurosciences, 24014, Roanoke, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years, and the number of surgeons using the DAA is steadily increasing. Thus, the question arises whether femoral revisions are possible through the same interval. INDICATIONS: Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, malalignment, periprosthetic joint infection or periprosthetic femoral fracture. CONTRAINDICATIONS: A draining sinus from another approach. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The incision for the primary DAA can be extended distally and proximally. If necessary, two releases can be performed to allow better exposure of the proximal femur. The DAA interval can be extended to the level of the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in order to perform a tensor release. If needed, a release of the external rotators can be performed in addition. If a component cannot be explanted endofemorally, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy or an extended trochanteric osteotomy has to be performed, the skin incision needs to be extended distally to maintain access to the femoral diaphysis. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Depending on the indication for the femoral revision, ranging from partial weight bearing in cases of periprosthetic fractures to full weight bearing in cases of aseptic loosening.

resultsIn all, 50 femoral revisions with a mean age of 65.7 years and a mean follow-up of 2.1 years were investigated. The femoral revision was endofemoral in 41 cases, while a transfemoral approach with a lazy‑S extension was performed in 9 patients. The overall complication rate was 12% (6 complications); 3 patients or 6% of the included patients required reoperations. None of the implanted stems showed a varus or valgus position. There were no cases of mechanical loosening, stem fracture or subsidence. Median WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score before surgery improved significantly from preoperative (52.5) to postoperative (27.2).

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisPeriprosthetic FracturesAgedFemurHumansProsthesis DesignReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeApproach extensionsDirect anterior approachFemoral revisionModular stemRevision total hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35641790
PMCPMC9197934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.