A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Supine and Lateral Patient Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Surgical Approach
Christian Pearsall MD, MS , Michael Denham MD, MS , Jeremy S. Frederick MD , Omar K. Farah MD, MBA , Jakub Tatka MD , Roshan P. Shah MD JD , Jeffrey A. Geller MD
{"title":"A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Supine and Lateral Patient Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Surgical Approach","authors":"Christian Pearsall MD, MS , Michael Denham MD, MS , Jeremy S. Frederick MD , Omar K. Farah MD, MBA , Jakub Tatka MD , Roshan P. Shah MD JD , Jeffrey A. Geller MD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To determine any differences in clinical outcomes between patients in the supine vs the lateral position during anterior-based muscle sparing (ABMS) total hip arthroplasty (THA).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective review was performed of 368 patients undergoing THA via the ABMS approach (201 lateral vs 167 supine position) at our institution (2015-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing primary THA. Exclusion criteria were any revision surgeries and patients who did not undergo the ABMS THA. Outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, ambulation distance, length of stay, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and physical function scores at 3 time periods (preoperative, 3 months postoperative, and 1 year postoperative).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The supine group had significantly greater postoperative day 0 ambulation distance (150 vs 60 meters; <em>P</em> < .001), while no difference was observed on postoperative day 1 (210 meters in supine vs 200 in lateral; <em>P</em> = .921). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the supine group (1; interquartile range 0-1) with respect to the lateral group (1; interquartile range 0-2; <em>P</em> < .001). The in-hospital complication rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .780), return to operating room rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .780), and readmission rates (5.4% in supine vs 5.0% in lateral; <em>P</em> = .631) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed across any Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both supine and lateral patient positioning provide acceptable early surgical outcomes, suggesting that satisfactory results can be obtained via both positions in THAs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 101515"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002000/pdfft?md5=0e617c0d09de8553d1718f1e0a4c4bee&pid=1-s2.0-S2352344124002000-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
To determine any differences in clinical outcomes between patients in the supine vs the lateral position during anterior-based muscle sparing (ABMS) total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods
A retrospective review was performed of 368 patients undergoing THA via the ABMS approach (201 lateral vs 167 supine position) at our institution (2015-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing primary THA. Exclusion criteria were any revision surgeries and patients who did not undergo the ABMS THA. Outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, ambulation distance, length of stay, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and physical function scores at 3 time periods (preoperative, 3 months postoperative, and 1 year postoperative).
Results
The supine group had significantly greater postoperative day 0 ambulation distance (150 vs 60 meters; P < .001), while no difference was observed on postoperative day 1 (210 meters in supine vs 200 in lateral; P = .921). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the supine group (1; interquartile range 0-1) with respect to the lateral group (1; interquartile range 0-2; P < .001). The in-hospital complication rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), return to operating room rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), and readmission rates (5.4% in supine vs 5.0% in lateral; P = .631) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed across any Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores.
Conclusions
Both supine and lateral patient positioning provide acceptable early surgical outcomes, suggesting that satisfactory results can be obtained via both positions in THAs.
期刊介绍:
Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.