切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华关节外科杂志(电子版)

中华关节外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02) : 138 -144,177. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2019.02.002

所属专题： 文献；

临床论著

比基尼入路和前外侧小切口入路全髋关节置换术的临床效果比较研究
张海宁1,†(), 孙一1, 丁昌荣2, 徐亦鹏3, 王英振1   
  1. 1. 266000　青岛大学附属医院关节外科
    2. 266000　青岛大学附属医院特检科
    3. 061000　沧州市人民医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2018-07-10 出版日期:2019-04-01
  • 通信作者: 张海宁
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81672197)

Short-term clinical outcome comparison between Bikini incision with anterior approach and orthopädische chirurgie München approach in total hip arthroplasty

Haining Zhang1,†(), Yi Sun1, Changrong Ding2, Yipeng Xu3, Yingzhen Wang1   

  1. 1. Department of Joint Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, China
    2. Department of Special Examination, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, China
    3. Department of Orthopaedic, Cangzhou People’s Hospital, Cangzhou 061000, China
  • Received:2018-07-10 Published:2019-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Haining Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Haining, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

张海宁, 孙一, 丁昌荣, 徐亦鹏, 王英振. 比基尼入路和前外侧小切口入路全髋关节置换术的临床效果比较研究[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(02): 138-144,177.

Haining Zhang, Yi Sun, Changrong Ding, Yipeng Xu, Yingzhen Wang. Short-term clinical outcome comparison between Bikini incision with anterior approach and orthopädische chirurgie München approach in total hip arthroplasty[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(02): 138-144,177.

目的

通过对比比基尼(Bikini)入路和前外侧小切口(OCM)入路首次全髋关节置换术的近期临床效果，对两种手术入路进行分析评价。

方法

回顾性选取2016年9月至2017年9月于青岛大学附属医院关节外科首次行全髋关节置换80例(80髋)诊断为股骨头缺血性坏死患者，排除诊断为类风湿性关节炎、先天性髋关节发育不良或脱位和既往髋关节手术史患者。其中行经Bikini切口的前入路40例，OCM入路40例。男性47例，女性33例，平均年龄(66±10)岁。通过独立样本t检验分析两组患者一般资料、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、血红蛋白含量的变化、术后输血率、切口长度、肢体不等长发生率、住院天数、围手术期Harris评分和视觉模拟疼痛(VAS)评分、股四头肌和髋关节外展肌肌力恢复时间、血清股酸激酶(CK)、C反应蛋白(CRP)的变化量、影像学表现及手术并发症，评价两种手术方式的围手术期效果。

结果

80例患者平均随访(6.5±2.3)个月。与OCM组相比，Bikini组患者的髋关节外展肌肌力恢复时间略短，术后血清CK、CRP变化量少。而在患者一般资料、手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、血红蛋白含量的变化、术后输血率、手术切口长度、肢体不等长发生率、住院时间、围手术期Harris评分和VAS评分、股四头肌肌力恢复时间及影像学表现方面两组无明显差异。但是Bikini组和OCM组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、髋臼前倾角和外展角方面均出现了前10例患者与后30例患者相比差异具有统计学意义(均为P<0.01)。

结论

Bikini入路与OCM入路均能取得良好的短期临床效果，Bikini入路对肌肉损伤小，炎症反应弱，外展肌肌力恢复快。两种手术入路均存在学习曲线。

关键词: 外科手术，微创性, 髋关节, 关节成形术
Objective

To evaluate and compare the early clinical results between bikini incision for anterior approach and orthop?dische chirurgie München (OCM)approach for total hip arthropasty.

Methods

Eighty patients (80 hips) with avascular necrosis of the femoral head who underwent total hip arthroplasty for the first time from September 2016 to September 2017 in the Joint Surgery Department of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University were retrospectively selected. Patients diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis, congenital dysplasia or dislocation of the hip and previous history of hip surgery were excluded. Among them, 30 coses underwent Bikini incision for direct anterior approech (DAA) and 30 cases underwent OCM. There were 47 males and 33 females with an average age of (66±10) years. The general data, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, hemoglobin content, postoperative blood transfusion rate, incision length, limb unequal length incidence, hospitalization days, perioperative Harris score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score, quadriceps femoris and abductor hip muscle strength recovery time, amount of CK and CRP in serum, imaging findings and surgical complications were analyzed to evaluate the perioperative effects of the two surgical methods.

Results

A total of 80 patients were followed up for an average of (6.5±2.3) months. Compared with OCM group, Bikini group had shorter recovery time of abductor muscle strength and less changes of serum CK and CRP. However, there was no significant difference in general information, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hemoglobin content, postoperative blood transfusion rate, incision length, limb unequal length, hospitalization time, perioperative Harris score, VAS, quadriceps femoris muscle strength recovery time or imaging findings between the two groups. But Bikini approach and OCM approach had significant differences in operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative drainage, acetabular anteversion and abduction angle between the first 10 patients and the latter 30 patients (all P<0.01).

Conclusions

Bikini approach and OCM approach can achieve good short-term clinical results. Bikini approach has less muscle damage, weak inflammatory response, abductor muscle strength recovery is fast. There is a learning curve in the two operative approaches.

Key words: Minimally invasive surgical procedures, Hip joint, Arthroplasty
图3 术后假体位置良好
表1 术前一般资料
组别 例数 年龄[岁，(±s)] 男性占比(%) BMI[kg/m2，(±s)] 术前血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)] Harris评分(±s) VAS评分(±s)
Bikini组 40 66.3±9.7 57.5 26.7±4.0 129.3±11.8 58.4±10.6 9.0±1.4
OCM组 40 65.7±10.1 60.0 26.0±4.3 131.4±10.9 59.6±11.5 8.3±2.0
统计值 ? t＝0.262 χ2＝2.324 t＝0.825 t＝0.831 t＝0.507 t＝1.738
P值 ? >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
表2 手术一般情况
组别 例数 手术时间[min，(±s)] 术中出血量[ml，(±s)] 术后引流量[ml, (±s)] 术后24 h血红蛋白值[g/L, (±s)] 输血率(%) 手术切口长度[cm, (±s)] 肢体不等长发生率(%) 住院天数[d, (±s)]
Bikini组 40 105.0±19.0 296.0±97.0 198.0±88.0 99.4±9.8 20.0 7.6±2.1 13.2 7.2±2.6
OCM组 40 109.0±20.0 309.0±89.0 207.0±92.0 100.5±8.2 13.3 8.1±1.9 19.7 7.5±2.0
统计值 ? t＝0.917 t＝0.625 t＝0.447 t＝0.544 χ2＝1.965 t＝1.117 χ2＝2.005 t＝0.578
P值 ? >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
表3 组内不同患者手术一般情况比较
Bikini组 手术时间[min，(±s)] 术中出血量[ml，(±s)] 术后引流量[ml, (±s)] 输血率(%) OCM组 手术时间(min) 术中出血量(ml) 术后引流量(ml) 输血率(%)
前10例 120±16 369±101 268±96 30% 前10例 126±20 382±104 277±99 30%
后30例 97±19 241±91 146±84 15% 后30例 98±21 265±88 152±88 5%
统计值 t＝3.436 t＝3.751 t＝3.751 χ2＝1.1.69 统计值 t＝3.692 t＝3.481 t＝3.773 χ2＝3.334
P值 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05 P值 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05
表4 术后Harris评分和VAS评分比较(±s)
组别 例数 Harris评分 VAS评分 直腿抬高功能锻炼时间(d) 髋关节主动外展时间(d)
术后2周 术后6周 术后3个月 术后6个月 术后24 h 术后6周
Bikini组 40 67.0±13.0 86.0±12.0 93.0±10.0 96.0±9.0 4.0±1.3 1.8±0.6 1.1±0.9 1.4±0.7
OCM组 40 71.0± 14.0 81.0±13.0 91.0±9.0 94.0±9.0 3.9±1.2 1.9±0.5 1.5±1.0 2.3±0.6
统计值 ? t＝1.324 t＝1.787 t＝0.940 t＝0.994 t＝0.358 t＝0.470 t＝1.880 t＝6.174
P值 ? >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 <0.01
表5 血清学指标比较(±s)
组别 例数 术后当天CK变化量(u/L) 术后1 d CK变化量(u/L) 术后2 d CK变化量(u/L) 术后当天CRP变化量(mg/dl) 术后1 d CRP变化量(mg/dl) 术后2 d CRP变化量(mg/dl)
Bikini组 40 50±15 105±38 90±36 22±7 39±12 33±9
OCM组 40 87±61 177±51 130±43 35±10 59±21 49±16
t值 ? 3.676 7.066 4.504 6.309 5.229 5.493
P值 ? <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
表6 组内不同患者间髋臼外展角和前倾角的比较(±s)
Bikini组 髋臼外展角(°) 髋臼前倾角(°)
前10例 51±7 7±3
后30例 41±6 14±5
t值 4.275 3.895
P值 <0.01 <0.01
OCM组 髋臼外展角(°) 髋臼前倾角(°)
前10例 48±8 5±4
后30例 40±6 12±6
t值 3.505 3.346
P值 <0.01 <0.01
[1]
陈朦村，杨述华，叶树楠，等．直接前路与微创后外侧入路初次全髋关节置换术早期临床疗效比较[J/CD]．中华关节外科杂志(电子版)，2017，11(4):344-351.
[2]
Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, et al. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Bone Joint J, 2017, 99B (6): 732-740.
[3]
Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience[J]. Orthop Clin North Am, 2004, 35(2): 137-142.
[4]
Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C, et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2014, 22(9): 595-603.
[5]
王荣，李秀霞，高明暄，等. 微创与传统全髋关节置换术临床疗效对比的系统评价[J]. 中国骨伤，2016, 29(2): 172-178.
[6]
Yue C, Kang PD, Pei FX. Comparison of direct anterior and lateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA)[J/OL]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94(50): e2126. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002126.
[7]
Moerenhout KG, Cherix S, Rüdiger HA. Total hip arthroplasty through anterior "minimal invasive" approach[J]. Rev Med Suisse, 2012, 8(367):2429-2432.
[8]
Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement[J]. Lancet, 2007, 370(9597): 1508-1519.
[9]
Jung J, Anagnostakos K, Kohn D. Clinical results of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty[J]. Orthopade, 2012, 41(5):399-406.
[10]
Roettinger H. Minimally invasive anterolateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty: Early clinical results[J]. Hip Int, 2006, 16(2, 4): S42-S47.
[11]
Röttinger H. Minimally invasive anterolateral approach for total hip replacement (OCM technique)[J]. Oper Orthop Traumatol, 2010, 22(4):421-430.
[12]
Martin R, Clayson PE, Troussel S, et al. Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2011, 26(8): 1362-1372.
[13]
Keith, P, Connolly, et al. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: literature review of variations in surgical technique[J]. World J Orthop, 2016, 7(1): 38-43.
[14]
Connolly KP, Kamath AF. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: comparative outcomes and contemporary results[J]. World J Orthop, 2016, 7(2): 94-101.
[15]
Faldini C, Mazzotti A, Perna F, et al. Modified minimally invasive direct anterior approach through a bikini incision for total hip arthroplasty：technique and results in young female patients[J]. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents, 2017, 31(4 suppl 1): 83-89.
[16]
Leunig M, Faas M, Von Knoch F, et al. Skin crease 'bikini’ incision for anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: surgical technique and preliminary results[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(7): 2245-2252.
[17]
Leunig M, Hutmacher JE, Ricciardi BF, et al. Skin crease 'bikini’ incision for the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty[J]. Bone Joint J, 2018, 100B(7): 853-861.
[18]
Putananon C, Tuchinda H, Arirachakaran A, et al. Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty：network meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2018, 28(2): 255-267.
[19]
Reichert JC, Volkmann MR, Koppmair M, et al. Comparative retrospective study of the direct anterior and transgluteal approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty[J]. Int Orthop, 2015, 39(12): 2309-2313.
[20]
Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Güth S, et al. A prospective randomized peri-and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach[J/OL]. Orthop Rev (Pavia), 2013, 5(3): e19. doi: 10.4081/or.2013.e19.
[21]
Van Oldenrijk J, Hoogland PV, Tuijthof GJ, et al. Soft tissue damage after minimally invasive THA[J]. Acta Orthop, 2010, 81(6): 696-702.
[22]
Apple FS, Rhodes M. Enzymatic estimation of skeletal muscle damage by analysis of changes in serum creatine kinase[J]. J Appl Physiol, 1988, 65(6): 2598-2600.
[23]
Byrnes WC, Clarkson PM, White JS, et al. Delayed onset muscle soreness following repeated bouts of downhill running[J]. J Appl Physiol, 1985, 59(3): 710-715.
[24]
Teet JS, Skinner HB, Khoury L. The effect of the "mini" incision in total hip arthroplasty on component position[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2006, 21(4): 503-507. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.06.011.
[25]
D’lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, et al. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000, 82(3): 315-321.
[26]
古明晖，张志奇，何爱珊，等．骨盆倾斜角和骶骨倾斜角在合并脊柱疾病的患者行初次全髋关节置换术中的作用[J/CD]．中华关节外科杂志(电子版)，2013，7(2):134-137.
[27]
Archibeck MJ, White RE. Learning curve for the two-incision total hip replacement[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2004, (429): 232-238.
[28]
Den Hartog YM, Mathijssen NM, Vehmeijer SB. The less invasive anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparison to other approaches and an evaluation of the learning curve -a systematic review[J]. Hip Int, 2016, 26(2): 105-120.
[29]
Müeller DA, Zingg PO, Dora C. Anterior minimally invasive approach for total hip replacement: five-year survivorship and learning curve[J]. Hip Int, 2014, 24(3): 277-283.
[30]
De Geest T, Fennema P, Lenaerts G, et al. Adverse effects associated with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian meta-analysis[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2015, 135(8): 1183-1192.
[31]
Spaans AJ, van den Hout JA, Bolder SB. High complication rate in the early experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach[J]. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(4): 342-346.
[32]
张先龙，沈灏，王琦，等．前外侧肌间隙入路微创全髋关节置换术的应用解剖与临床研究[J]．中华骨科杂志，2007，27(4):268-272.
[1] 周钰菡, 肖欢, 唐毅, 杨春江, 周娟, 朱丽容, 徐娟, 牟芳婷. 超声对儿童髋关节暂时性滑膜炎的诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2023, 20(08): 795-800.
[2] 金鑫, 谢卯, 刘芸, 杨操, 杨述华, 许伟华. 个性化股骨导向器辅助初次全髋关节置换的随机对照研究[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 780-787.
[3] 邓华梅, 袁札根, 曾德荣, 潘珊珊, 张葆青, 欧爱华, 曹学伟. 全膝关节置换术中气压止血带应用效果与影响因素分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 788-794.
[4] 张思平, 刘伟, 马鹏程. 全膝关节置换术后下肢轻度内翻对线对疗效的影响[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 808-817.
[5] 李培杰, 乔永杰, 张浩强, 曾健康, 谭飞, 李嘉欢, 王静, 周胜虎. 细菌培养阴性的假体周围感染诊治的最新进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 827-833.
[6] 林文, 王雨萱, 许嘉悦, 王矜群, 王睿娜, 何董源, 樊沛. 人工关节置换登记系统的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 834-841.
[7] 闫文, 谢兴文, 顾玉彪, 雷宁波, 马成, 于文霞, 高亚雄, 张磊. 微小RNA与全膝关节置换术后深静脉血栓的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 842-846.
[8] 贺敬龙, 尚宏喜, 郝敏, 谢伟, 高明宏, 孙炜, 刘安庆. 重度类风湿关节炎患者行多关节置换术的临床手术疗效[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 860-864.
[9] 孟繁宇, 周新社, 赵志, 裴立家, 刘犇. 侧位直接前方入路髋关节置换治疗偏瘫肢体股骨颈骨折[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 865-870.
[10] 王宏宇. 固定与活动平台假体在全膝关节置换术中的应用价值[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 871-876.
[11] 李善武, 叶永杰, 王兵, 王子呓, 银毅, 孙官军, 张大刚. 胫骨高位截骨与单髁置换的早期疗效比较[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 882-888.
[12] 李辉, 吴奇, 张子琦, 张晗, 王仿, 许鹏. 日间全膝关节置换术早期疗效及标准化流程探索[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 889-892.
[13] 刘伦, 王云鹭, 李锡勇, 韩鹏飞, 张鹏, 李晓东. 机器人辅助膝关节单髁置换术的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 715-721.
[14] 王桂冠, 徐杰. 运动学对线在全膝关节置换术中的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 726-731.
[15] 李岩松, 李涛, 张元鸣飞, 李志鹏, 周谋望. 头戴式虚拟现实设备辅助全膝关节置换术后康复的初步研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 676-681.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号