ArticleJBJS essential surgical techniques
Direct Anterior Approach to Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.
Article in JBJS essential surgical techniques. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty remains an appealing option for young and active patients Description: Through a standard anterolateral skin incision and fascial split, the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) is mobilized by blunt finger dissection up to the anterior superior iliac spine while maintaining its fascial origin. The superficial internervous plane is created between the TFL laterally and the sartorius medially. Dissection proceeds in the deep interval between the gluteus medius and rectus femoris, with care to preserve the ascending branches of the lateral circumflex femoral vessels. The approach continues to the hip joint capsule, which is sharply incised to allow femoral head dislocation. Femoral head preparation is guided by patient-specific 3D-printed jigs generated from preoperative CT scans. Each jig provides a reproducible entry point and trajectory for a Steinmann pin, ensuring central alignment and avoiding femoral neck notching. Sequential reaming, chamfer cuts, and trialing are performed. The acetabulum is exposed with 3 retractors (anterior and inferior Hohmann and posterior curved 2-pronged) and progressively reamed without fluoroscopy until congruent hemispherical coverage is achieved. A press-fit cup is implanted without cement, followed by cementation of the femoral component with use of a dry-field technique. Stability and leg length are reassessed, and closure is performed in layers with barbed absorbable sutures and a waterproof dressing. If intraoperative stability or leg length restoration is found to be unsatisfactory, adjustments are made prior to final implantation. This may include repositioning of the acetabular component, upsizing or adjusting the femoral component, or performing additional soft-tissue release to achieve proper balance. Cementation of the definitive implants and closure are only performed once stability and length are confirmed in all functional positions. Alternatives: Conventional resurfacing techniques rely on intraoperative fluoroscopy, mechanical alignment guides, or freehand pin placement for femoral head preparation. Compared with these methods, 3D-printed patient-specific jigs minimize intraoperative fluoroscopy, standardize pin trajectory, and reduce the risk of malalignment and implant mispositioning. Similarly, total hip arthroplasty remains a well-established alternative to hip resurfacing, providing predictable pain relief and functional outcomes, although with greater bone resection and different long-term considerations. Rationale: Patient-specific jigs derived from CT-based planning provide individualized guidance that restores native femoral head-neck orientation in slight valgus, reducing the risk of femoral neck notching and improving component survival. The minimally extensile direct anterior approach minimizes soft-tissue damage while ensuring adequate exposure of both the femoral and acetabular sides. Expected Outcomes: Patients may expect early postoperative weight-bearing, decreased need for analgesia, and comparable short-term functional outcomes. Patients may expect a more extensile incision, for adequate manipulation and dislocation of the femoral head, compared with the standard Smith-Petersen approach performed for conventional total hip arthroplasty Important Tips: The anterior approach requires meticulous dissection and hemostasis.The anterior approach is conducted with minimal exposure, requiring careful manipulation to release the capsule.The use of 3D models is essential for accurate guidewire placement and alignment and for achieving a precise fit of ceramic or metal heads.Finger dissection of the TFL up to the anterior superior iliac spine avoids detachment and preserves muscle integrity.The posterior curved 2-pronged retractor exposes the posterior acetabulum and displaces the femoral head posteriorly, creating a working space and protecting cancellous bone.Ensure meticulous drying of the femoral head before cementation to optimize fixation.During acetabulum reaming, the reamer head can be introduced first, followed by attachment of the handle, in order to maximize clearance in tight spaces. Acronyms and Abbreviations: CT = computed tomographyASIS = anterior superior iliac spine.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.