Unilateral versus simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty. The Belgian experience.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.52628/89.4.12007
G Beckers, J Manon, O Cornu, M VAN Cauter
{"title":"Unilateral versus simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty. The Belgian experience.","authors":"G Beckers, J Manon, O Cornu, M VAN Cauter","doi":"10.52628/89.4.12007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bilateral hip osteoarthritis is frequent. The safety and patient selection for simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty (SBTHA) are still debated. The purpose of this article is to share our experience and assess if performing SBTHA carries more risk than unilateral total hip arthroplasty (UTHA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective data analysis was performed on 468 patients who underwent either UTHA (418 patients) or SBTHA (50 patients) using a direct anterior approach between June 2016 and December 2020. Apart from SBTHA patients being significantly younger, there was no significant preoperative difference in demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables and biological values between the two groups. Primary outcomes were 90-days emergency room (ER) visit and readmission, as well as 90-days minor and major complications. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), operative time and blood loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>90-days ER visit (p=0.244), 90- days readmission (p=0.091), overall complications rate (p=0.376), minor complications (p=0.952) and major complications (p=0.258) were not statistically different between the two groups. Operative time and average LOS were significantly longer in the SBTHA group (p<0.001). Blood loss was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the SBTHA group. However, no difference in the transfusion rate between the two groups was observed (p=0.724).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Complication rate, 90- days hospital readmission and 90-days ER visit were similar between the two groups. This study shows that performing SBTHA is a safe, effective, and doesn't carry additional risks for patients with bilateral symptomatic osteoarthritis.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.4.12007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bilateral hip osteoarthritis is frequent. The safety and patient selection for simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty (SBTHA) are still debated. The purpose of this article is to share our experience and assess if performing SBTHA carries more risk than unilateral total hip arthroplasty (UTHA).

Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed on 468 patients who underwent either UTHA (418 patients) or SBTHA (50 patients) using a direct anterior approach between June 2016 and December 2020. Apart from SBTHA patients being significantly younger, there was no significant preoperative difference in demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables and biological values between the two groups. Primary outcomes were 90-days emergency room (ER) visit and readmission, as well as 90-days minor and major complications. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), operative time and blood loss.

Results: 90-days ER visit (p=0.244), 90- days readmission (p=0.091), overall complications rate (p=0.376), minor complications (p=0.952) and major complications (p=0.258) were not statistically different between the two groups. Operative time and average LOS were significantly longer in the SBTHA group (p<0.001). Blood loss was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the SBTHA group. However, no difference in the transfusion rate between the two groups was observed (p=0.724).

Conclusion: Complication rate, 90- days hospital readmission and 90-days ER visit were similar between the two groups. This study shows that performing SBTHA is a safe, effective, and doesn't carry additional risks for patients with bilateral symptomatic osteoarthritis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单侧与同时双侧全髋关节置换术。比利时的经验。
双侧髋关节骨关节炎很常见。关于同时进行双侧全髋关节置换术(SBTHA)的安全性和患者选择仍存在争议。本文旨在分享我们的经验,并评估实施双侧全髋关节置换术(SBTHA)是否比单侧全髋关节置换术(UTHA)风险更大:方法:我们对2016年6月至2020年12月期间使用直接前路方法接受UTHA(418例)或SBTHA(50例)的468例患者进行了回顾性数据分析。除SBTHA患者明显更年轻外,两组患者术前在人口统计学、合并症、手术变量和生物值方面均无明显差异。主要结果是 90 天急诊室就诊率和再入院率,以及 90 天轻微和主要并发症。次要结果是住院时间(LOS)、手术时间和失血量:结果:90 天急诊就诊率(P=0.244)、90 天再入院率(P=0.091)、总并发症率(P=0.376)、轻微并发症(P=0.952)和主要并发症(P=0.258)在两组间无统计学差异。SBTHA 组的手术时间和平均住院日明显更长(p 结论:SBTHA 组的手术时间和平均住院日明显更长(p):两组的并发症发生率、90 天再入院率和 90 天急诊就诊率相似。这项研究表明,对于双侧无症状骨关节炎患者来说,SBTHA 是一种安全、有效且不会带来额外风险的手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Clavicular tunnel widening after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: comparison between single and double clavicular tunnel techniques. Patients' perspective of fast-track total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Advanced osteoarthritis of the hip as reason for extensive asymmetric leg edema: a rare case report and review of the literature. Patient with knee osteoarthritis demonstrates improved knee adduction moment after knee joint distraction: a case report. Cubital tunnel release with Wide Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) technique in an outpatient setting is safe and effective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1