Pub Date : 2024-02-29DOI: 10.55522/jmpas.v13i1.6154
Su Djie to Rante
Hip replacement surgery, a significant orthopaedic intervention, is commonly undertaken to address hip pain stemming from aging or injury, particularly among elderly patients. The primary objective of this surgical procedure is to restore the patient's quality of life to its pre-operative state, enabling them to resume normal daily activities. Typically, the posterior approach has been the conventional surgical method for hip replacement, widely practiced both in Indonesia and globally. This evolving trend has sparked interest in comparing the effectiveness and outcomes of the anterior and posterior approaches, particularly concerning critical factors such as operating time, length of hospital stays, need for transfusion, and postoperative mobilization time. In pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, a study was conducted, focusing on patients who underwent hip replacement surgery at Siloam Kupang Hospital. The anterior approach was considered as the case group, while the posterior approach served as the control group. Surprisingly, the study did not identify any statistically significant differences in operating time and transfusion requirements between hip replacement surgeries utilizing the anterior approach and those employing the posterior approach. This suggests that, from a procedural standpoint, both approaches are comparable in terms of efficiency and blood management. However, when assessing postoperative outcomes, distinct trends emerged. The anterior approach demonstrated a notable advantage in terms of faster mobilization times, implying a quicker recovery and the potential for patients to regain their mobility sooner. On the other hand, the posterior approach exhibited a shorter hospital stay, suggesting a streamlined postoperative course. These findings contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse within the orthopaedic community regarding the merits of the anterior and posterior approaches in hip replacement surgery. As medical practices continue to evolve, such comparative studies play a pivotal role in refining surgical techniques and optimizing patient outcomes in the realm of orthopaedic interventions.
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Hip Replacement\u0000 Surgery: Enhancing Patient Efficiency","authors":"Su Djie to Rante","doi":"10.55522/jmpas.v13i1.6154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55522/jmpas.v13i1.6154","url":null,"abstract":"Hip replacement surgery, a significant orthopaedic intervention, is commonly\u0000 undertaken to address hip pain stemming from aging or injury, particularly among elderly\u0000 patients. The primary objective of this surgical procedure is to restore the patient's\u0000 quality of life to its pre-operative state, enabling them to resume normal daily\u0000 activities. Typically, the posterior approach has been the conventional surgical method\u0000 for hip replacement, widely practiced both in Indonesia and globally. This evolving\u0000 trend has sparked interest in comparing the effectiveness and outcomes of the anterior\u0000 and posterior approaches, particularly concerning critical factors such as operating\u0000 time, length of hospital stays, need for transfusion, and postoperative mobilization\u0000 time. In pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, a study was conducted, focusing on\u0000 patients who underwent hip replacement surgery at Siloam Kupang Hospital. The anterior\u0000 approach was considered as the case group, while the posterior approach served as the\u0000 control group. Surprisingly, the study did not identify any statistically significant\u0000 differences in operating time and transfusion requirements between hip replacement\u0000 surgeries utilizing the anterior approach and those employing the posterior approach.\u0000 This suggests that, from a procedural standpoint, both approaches are comparable in\u0000 terms of efficiency and blood management. However, when assessing postoperative\u0000 outcomes, distinct trends emerged. The anterior approach demonstrated a notable\u0000 advantage in terms of faster mobilization times, implying a quicker recovery and the\u0000 potential for patients to regain their mobility sooner. On the other hand, the posterior\u0000 approach exhibited a shorter hospital stay, suggesting a streamlined postoperative\u0000 course. These findings contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse within the\u0000 orthopaedic community regarding the merits of the anterior and posterior approaches in\u0000 hip replacement surgery. As medical practices continue to evolve, such comparative\u0000 studies play a pivotal role in refining surgical techniques and optimizing patient\u0000 outcomes in the realm of orthopaedic interventions.","PeriodicalId":16445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical pharmaceutical and allied sciences","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140414986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}