Loading…

Two-year gait analysis controls of the minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach

The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term functional outcome of two hip approaches by gait analysis. Patients were selected by prospective randomization, and operated on either by the anterolateral approach or by a minimally invasive direct anterior approach. 33 patients (17 anterolate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2018-10, Vol.58, p.34-38
Main Authors: Thaler, Martin, Lechner, Ricarda, Putzer, David, Mayr, Eckart, Huber, Dèbora Coraça, Liebensteiner, Michael C., Nogler, Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term functional outcome of two hip approaches by gait analysis. Patients were selected by prospective randomization, and operated on either by the anterolateral approach or by a minimally invasive direct anterior approach. 33 patients (17 anterolateral approach; 16 direct anterior approach) were analyzed using a Vicon 870 system. Gait analysis was performed two years after total hip arthroplasty. Temporo-spatial and kinematic variables were obtained. On chest and pelvic kinematics, no patient group demonstrated significant differences. The time-distance parameters showed significant differences with the anterior approach in cadence and stride time. The study indicates that the direct anterior approach exerts positive effects compared with the anterolateral approach two years after surgery. The muscle-sparing concept of direct anterior approach results in significant differences in gait compared to the anterolateral approach 2 years after surgery. •Direct anterior approach significantly better in cadence, step time and stride time•Kinematics for the thorax and pelvis showed no significant difference.•Patient reported outcome measures showed no significant difference.
ISSN:0268-0033
1879-1271
DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.06.018