No benefit of the two-incision THA over mini-posterior THA: A pilot study of strength and gait

Aaron J. Krych, Mark W. Pagnano, Krista Coleman Wood, R. Meneghini, Kenton Kaufmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Proponents of the two-incision minimally invasive approach for THA have claimed recovery is dramatically better than after other methods of THA, but this has not been confirmed with any objective data. We designed a prospective randomized trial of the two-incision THA versus the mini-posterior technique to determine whether patients having two-incision THA, when compared with patients having mini-posterior THA, had evidence of less muscle damage as reflected by changes in hip muscle strength after surgery, a less antalgic gait as reflected by changes in the single-leg stance time and walking velocity, and better hip function as reflected by changes in the hip moments during level walking and stair climbing as assessed by comprehensive gait analysis testing. Twenty-one patients, including 13 men and eight women, were prospectively randomized to either the two-incision or the mini-posterior approach and completed preoperative and 6-week postoperative three-dimensional gait analyses and isometric strength testing. We found no evidence that patients who had two-incision THA had less muscle damage, less antalgic gait, or better gait kinematics than patients who had mini-posterior THA. Instead, when there was a difference in strength or gait parameters, it was the patients who had mini-posterior THA who tended to have quicker recovery. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)565-570
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Volume468
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tacrine
Gait
Hip
Walking
Muscles
Muscle Strength
Biomechanical Phenomena
Leg
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

No benefit of the two-incision THA over mini-posterior THA : A pilot study of strength and gait. / Krych, Aaron J.; Pagnano, Mark W.; Wood, Krista Coleman; Meneghini, R.; Kaufmann, Kenton.

In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 468, No. 2, 02.2010, p. 565-570.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krych, Aaron J. ; Pagnano, Mark W. ; Wood, Krista Coleman ; Meneghini, R. ; Kaufmann, Kenton. / No benefit of the two-incision THA over mini-posterior THA : A pilot study of strength and gait. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2010 ; Vol. 468, No. 2. pp. 565-570.
@article{0698e4c783b049638ad1a68b95320c19,
title = "No benefit of the two-incision THA over mini-posterior THA: A pilot study of strength and gait",
abstract = "Proponents of the two-incision minimally invasive approach for THA have claimed recovery is dramatically better than after other methods of THA, but this has not been confirmed with any objective data. We designed a prospective randomized trial of the two-incision THA versus the mini-posterior technique to determine whether patients having two-incision THA, when compared with patients having mini-posterior THA, had evidence of less muscle damage as reflected by changes in hip muscle strength after surgery, a less antalgic gait as reflected by changes in the single-leg stance time and walking velocity, and better hip function as reflected by changes in the hip moments during level walking and stair climbing as assessed by comprehensive gait analysis testing. Twenty-one patients, including 13 men and eight women, were prospectively randomized to either the two-incision or the mini-posterior approach and completed preoperative and 6-week postoperative three-dimensional gait analyses and isometric strength testing. We found no evidence that patients who had two-incision THA had less muscle damage, less antalgic gait, or better gait kinematics than patients who had mini-posterior THA. Instead, when there was a difference in strength or gait parameters, it was the patients who had mini-posterior THA who tended to have quicker recovery. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.",
author = "Krych, {Aaron J.} and Pagnano, {Mark W.} and Wood, {Krista Coleman} and R. Meneghini and Kenton Kaufmann",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s11999-009-0780-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "468",
pages = "565--570",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No benefit of the two-incision THA over mini-posterior THA

T2 - A pilot study of strength and gait

AU - Krych, Aaron J.

AU - Pagnano, Mark W.

AU - Wood, Krista Coleman

AU - Meneghini, R.

AU - Kaufmann, Kenton

PY - 2010/2

Y1 - 2010/2

N2 - Proponents of the two-incision minimally invasive approach for THA have claimed recovery is dramatically better than after other methods of THA, but this has not been confirmed with any objective data. We designed a prospective randomized trial of the two-incision THA versus the mini-posterior technique to determine whether patients having two-incision THA, when compared with patients having mini-posterior THA, had evidence of less muscle damage as reflected by changes in hip muscle strength after surgery, a less antalgic gait as reflected by changes in the single-leg stance time and walking velocity, and better hip function as reflected by changes in the hip moments during level walking and stair climbing as assessed by comprehensive gait analysis testing. Twenty-one patients, including 13 men and eight women, were prospectively randomized to either the two-incision or the mini-posterior approach and completed preoperative and 6-week postoperative three-dimensional gait analyses and isometric strength testing. We found no evidence that patients who had two-incision THA had less muscle damage, less antalgic gait, or better gait kinematics than patients who had mini-posterior THA. Instead, when there was a difference in strength or gait parameters, it was the patients who had mini-posterior THA who tended to have quicker recovery. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AB - Proponents of the two-incision minimally invasive approach for THA have claimed recovery is dramatically better than after other methods of THA, but this has not been confirmed with any objective data. We designed a prospective randomized trial of the two-incision THA versus the mini-posterior technique to determine whether patients having two-incision THA, when compared with patients having mini-posterior THA, had evidence of less muscle damage as reflected by changes in hip muscle strength after surgery, a less antalgic gait as reflected by changes in the single-leg stance time and walking velocity, and better hip function as reflected by changes in the hip moments during level walking and stair climbing as assessed by comprehensive gait analysis testing. Twenty-one patients, including 13 men and eight women, were prospectively randomized to either the two-incision or the mini-posterior approach and completed preoperative and 6-week postoperative three-dimensional gait analyses and isometric strength testing. We found no evidence that patients who had two-incision THA had less muscle damage, less antalgic gait, or better gait kinematics than patients who had mini-posterior THA. Instead, when there was a difference in strength or gait parameters, it was the patients who had mini-posterior THA who tended to have quicker recovery. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=76249114684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=76249114684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11999-009-0780-3

DO - 10.1007/s11999-009-0780-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 19330394

AN - SCOPUS:76249114684

VL - 468

SP - 565

EP - 570

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 2

ER -