john m keggi md
play

John M. Keggi, MD Connecticut Joint Replacement Institute - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Direct Anterior Approach THA All the Rage - For All the Right Reasons John M. Keggi, MD Connecticut Joint Replacement Institute Disclosures Smith & Nephew - Consultant OmniLife Science - Consultant & Royalties Medtronic -


  1. Direct Anterior Approach THA All the Rage - For All the Right Reasons John M. Keggi, MD Connecticut Joint Replacement Institute

  2. Disclosures • Smith & Nephew - Consultant • OmniLife Science - Consultant & Royalties • Medtronic - Consultant • Concept Design and Development • Corin - Institutional support • JISRF - Institutional support

  3. Myths • New • Unsafe • Building a ship in a bottle • Difficult • Rarely performed • Not possible without a special table • Not possible without special tools • Not extensile • Limited applications beyond THA • No functional difference

  4. Hueter 1883 • “...the leg keeps its tight connection to the pelvis which facilitates rehabilitation...” • “...bleeding is so little, that no single ligature has to be done...”

  5. “Mini-Posterior” Approaches • PATH, SuperPATH, SuperCap • “Direct Posterior” Approach - DPA • Spare IT Band • Release Conjoined tendon only • Gluteal - sparing Core features of the DAA For the last 40 years

  6. Safety • Good visibility at all times • Sciatic nerve • Femoral bundle • Thrombo-embolism • Anesthesia access • X-ray access

  7. Stability • Dislocation rate ==> Low • Relieves anterior capsular contracture • Posterior sling of capsule/rotators

  8. Two-Incision Confusion

  9. Presentation at Yale Orthopaedic Alumni Meeting in Banff, Canada 1988 banff Two incision anterior approach

  10. JBJS 2003 Ant THR

  11. Complications • Dislocation: 0.1% • Fracture requiring fixation: 1% • DVT + PE: 0.8% • 2132 patients – Body wt: 80 to 450 pounds

  12. Soft Tissue & Vascularity

  13. • Doppler study, 10 pts, DAA THA, Traction table • Non-signif reduction in FA and FV flow • Acetabular & femoral prep and final reduction

  14. Xray capability – Fluoro table – Standard OR bed – XR Cassette options

  15. AAKHS Data -DA • 2008 -- 8% • 2009 -- 12% • 2010 -- 16% • ICJR-- 25% of surgeons with >50 THA/yr – 2012 • 2016 —AAHKS 34%

  16. Regarding Tables….

  17. Regarding Tables…

  18. Instruments

  19. Extensile

  20. Revision THA - Standard Bed - 468 revisions - 3% dislocation - 2.5% infection - 5.8% fracture requiring fixation

  21. Safety • There is no circumstance that you cannot manage safely from the anterior approach

  22. Current Literature • Cup positioning • “Safe Zone” • Soft tissue concerns • Functional recovery

  23. Cup Positioning • 185 pts, Consecutive series (2003-2005) • Standard OR bed; Xray on POD 1,2 or 3 • 99% of cups properly positioned in the “Safe Zone” • 91% for posterior approach JOA 24(5), 2009

  24. • Prospective, multi-center study • 1000 pts, 17 centers • AD and Approach were independent risk factors

  25. • Single surgeon, 2 series • 100 PA vs 1st 100 DA cases • PA: Greater cup variance • PA: More large heads and lateralized liners

  26. Instability • DA: 2 cases of instability • One revision for instability • PA: 4 cases of instability • 4 revisions for instability

  27. Hard bearings • Impingement ==> early failure – Neck notching – Component fracture • Excessive inclination => Early wear, metalosis, osteolysis in MOM bearing • Best cup position 35-45 degrees

  28. Cup Angle - Peak Contact Stress AJO Oct 2014

  29. Soft Tissue • Case series: 2 PA surgeons, 1 DA surgeon • CPK & TNF-alpha JBJS 2011; 93:1392

  30. CK Levels

  31. • Less soft tissue damage on MRI at one year post-op • 50 pts (25 each group) • TFL equal changes • Less detachment, tendinitis, tears, fatty atrophy of gluteals Bone & Joint (JBJS-B) 2011

  32. • MIS DA, 2-incision DA, MIS AL, MIS PA, Lat Trans-gluteal • Cadaver study, muscle staining and dissection • Gluteal damage least with DAA Acta Orth 2010; 81(6):696

  33. Functional Recovery • Significantly quicker in single leg stance, loss of limp, walking speed and weaning from assistive device JOA 24(5), 2009

  34. • LOS 22d vs 30d (p=0.03) • Presence of Trendelenburg gait at 3 wks: • 29% vs 67% (p<0.001) • Negative Trendelenburg sign: • 17d vs 25d (p=0.0002) • Single leg stance >5s: • 17d vs 23 d (p=0.0004) • Gait w/cane >200m: • 12d vs 15.5d (p=0.009) Nakata, JOA 24(5), 2009

  35. • Single surgeon, 128 pts, “Fast track” • 2005-2007 • DAA vs Direct Lateral Approach • Physical and mental outcomes SF-36 and WOMAC better at 1 year; equal at 2 years

  36. • Single surgeon, 22 pts • 11 PA (after >2000 pts) • 11 DA (after 1st 100 DA pts) • DA: Improved IR/ER at 6 & 12 mo (no △ PA) • DA: Improved peak extension moment at 6 mo.

  37. • Single surgeon, 17 AL, 16 DA • 6 & 12 wk gait analysis vs pre-op GA • DA: 6 wks - Single leg support & stride time • DA: Faster improvements in most parameters

  38. • 50 pts PA; 1st 50 DA pts; Next 50 DA pts • Single surgeon series • Identical pre-emptive pain protocols

  39. • Single surgeon; 87 randomized pts • Surgical time: 84m vs 60m PA • Blood loss: 391 cc vs 191 cc PA • LOS: 2.3d vs 3.0d PA

  40. DA PA

  41. • Single surgeon, randomized trial, 51 pts • (experience of 2000 PA, 500 DAA) • Equal stairs, shoes/socks, up/go at 6 wks • Walking aide: 33d vs 43d (p=0.03) • LOS: 1.4d vs 2.0d (p= 0.01) • Pain relief: HHS-PS 27.8 vs 20.7 (p=0.04)

  42. Pain Control J Ortho Res 2015

  43. DAA Outcomes • A Large Randomized Trial of Direct Anterior and Mini-Posterior THA: Which Provides Faster Recovery? • AAHKS 2016 • Taunton, Trousdale, Sierra, Kaufman, Pagnano

  44. DAA vs mPA • Discontinue walker: 10 d vs 14.5 d • DC all gait aids: 18 d vs 23 d • DC opiods: 9 d vs 14 d • Stairs with gait aid: 5 d vs 10 d • Walk 6 blocks: 20.5 d vs 26 d

  45. Impingement • Arthroscopy • Mini Open Direct Anterior

  46. Impingement • Surgical Dislocation – Anterolateral – Trochanteric osteotomy

  47. Mini-Open FAI

  48. Hip Resurfacing March 2010

  49. Rehab/Post-op Considerations • Avoid supine straight leg raises • “Toes above the nose” • NSAID for pain and HO prophylaxis • Figure 4 for shoes and socks • Sex: Patient on the bottom 74

  50. 75

  51. JBJS Sept 2015, Grob, et al. JOA 2014

  52. JOA 2014

  53. Direct Anterior Advantages • Simplicity of set up • Extensile capability • Muscle recovery • Marketability • Cup position • Versatility • Stability • Safety

  54. Thank You

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend