Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The direct lateral approach: impact on gait patterns, foot progression angle and pain in comparison with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty has been successfully introduced in the past decade. Nevertheless, standard approaches such as the direct lateral approach are still commonly used in orthopaedic surgery due to easy handling, good intra-operative overview and low complication rates. However, a frequent occurrence of fatty atrophy within the anterior third of the gluteus medius muscle has been demonstrated when using the modified direct-lateral approach (mDL), which may be associated with a reduction in function, limitation of internal leg rotation, gait disorders and pain. The question addressed in this study is whether mDL-approach leads to unfavourable changes in foot progression angle (FPA), gait and to more postoperative pain compared with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach (ALMI).

Methods

Thirty patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip were recruited for this study. All subjects received an uncemented THA (Alloclassic®-Zweymüller stem, Allofit® Cup, FA Zimmer®), 15 through an ALMI-approach and 15 via the mDL-approach. Gait analyses were performed both preoperatively and 3 months after surgery to measure FPA, step length, stance duration, cadence and walking speed. Additionally, the Harris-Hip Score, pain according to the visual analogue scale and the Trendelenburg sign were evaluated.

Results

No influence of the surgical approach could be observed on the gait patterns or FPA. Furthermore, neither increased external rotation of the limb nor restriction of internal rotation during walking could be established. Pain and Harris-Hip Score did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion

In comparison with an ALMI approach, the mDL approach did not lead to a change in FPA postoperatively. No detrimental effect could be found on the gait pattern or pain after surgery. Based on these measurements, the minimally invasive anterolateral approach did not appear to provide functional benefits in outcome over the mDL approach. Consequently, both surgical approaches seem to be equally applicable approaches with good to very good functional results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker As, Bitounis Vc (1989) Abductor function after total hip replacement. An electromyographic and clinical review. J Bone Jt Surg Br 71:47–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bedi A, Dolan M, Leunig M et al (2011) Static and dynamic mechanical causes of hip pain. Arthroscopy 27:235–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertin Kc, Rottinger H (2004) Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson-Jones approach. Clinical Orthop Relat Res 429:248–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowman Kf, Fox J Jr, Sekiya Jk (2010) A clinically relevant review of hip biomechanics. Arthroscopy 26:1118–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowsher Ka, Vaughan Cl (1995) Effect of foot-progression angle on hip joint moments during gait. J Biomech 28:759–762

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Dw, Hu Cc, Chang Yh et al (2009) Comparison of clinical outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty by conventional anterolateral transgluteal or 2-incision approach. J Arthroplast 24:528–532

  7. De Beer J, Petruccelli D, Zalzal P et al (2004) Single-incision, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: length doesn’t matter. J Arthroplast 19:945–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Demos Ha, Rorabeck Ch, Bourne Rb et al (2001) Instability in primary total hip arthroplasty with the direct lateral approach. Clinical Orthop Relat Res 393:168–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dorr Ld, Wan Z, Malik A et al (2009) A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 91:2598–2604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gray H, Bannister L, Berry M et al (1995) Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of medicine and surgery. Churchill Livingstone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heller Mo, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G et al (2001) Influence of femoral anteversion on proximal femoral loading: measurement and simulation in four patients. Clinical Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:644–649

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Heller Mo, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G et al (2001) Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech 34:883–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hendel D, Yasin M, Garti A et al (2002) Fracture of the greater trochanter during hip replacement: a retrospective analysis of 21/372 cases. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 73:295–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hill M, Wernig A, Goldspink G (2003) Muscle satellite (stem) cell activation during local tissue injury and repair. J Anat 203:89–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleemann Ru, Heller Mo, Stoeckle U et al (2003) THA loading arising from increased femoral anteversion and offset may lead to critical cement stresses. J Orthop Res 21:767–774

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Laffosse Jm, Chiron P, Molinier F et al (2007) Prospective and comparative study of the anterolateral mini-invasive approach versus minimally invasive posterior approach for primary total hip replacement. Early results. Int Orthop 31:597–603

  17. Lin Yc, Chen Ch, Huang Ht et al (2007) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a posterolateral approach: technique and preliminary results. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 23:611–617

  18. Lloyd Bd, Williamson Da, Singh Na et al (2009) Recurrent and injurious falls in the year following hip fracture: a prospective study of incidence and risk factors from the Sarcopenia and Hip Fracture study. J Gerontol 64:599–609

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lugade V, Wu A, Jewett B et al (2010) Gait asymmetry following an anterior and anterolateral approach to total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25:675–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin R, Clayson Pe, Troussel S et al (2011) Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year. J Arthroplast 26:1362–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Masonis Jl, Bourne Rb (2002) Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clinical Orthop Relat Res 405:46–53

  22. Muller M, Tohtz S, Dewey M et al (2010) Evidence of reduced muscle trauma through a minimally invasive anterolateral approach by means of MRI. Clinical Orthop Relat Res 468:3192–3200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller M, Tohtz S, Springer I et al (2010) Randomized controlled trial of abductor muscle damage in relation to the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement: minimally invasive anterolateral versus modified direct lateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(2):179–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nankaku M, Tsuboyama T, Kakinoki R et al (2007) Gait analysis of patients in early stages after total hip arthroplasty: effect of lateral trunk displacement on walking efficiency. J Orthop Sci 12:550–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Da O’brien, Rorabeck Ch (2005) The mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthop Relat Res 441:99–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry J, Burnfield J (2010) Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. Slack Inc, Thorofare

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pfirrmann Cw, Notzli Hp, Dora C et al (2005) Abductor tendons and muscles assessed at MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Radiology 235:969–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pospischill M, Kranzl A, Attwenger B et al (2010) Minimally invasive compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparative gait analysis. J Bone Jt Surg 92:328–337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramesh M, O’byrne Jm, Mccarthy N et al (1996) Damage to the superior gluteal nerve after the Hardinge approach to the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78:903–906

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rasch A, Dalen N, Berg He (2010) Muscle strength, gait, and balance in 20 patients with hip osteoarthritis followed for 2 years after THA. Acta Orthopaedica 81:183–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roth A, Layher F, Venbrocks Ra (2006) Transgluteal mini-incision. Technique and our own results. Der Orthopade 35:744, 746–750

    Google Scholar 

  32. Runge M (2002) Diagnosis of the risk of accidental falls in the elderly. Ther Umsch 59:351–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sendtner E, Tibor S, Winkler R et al (2010) Stem torsion in total hip replacement. Acta Orthopaedica 81:579–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Siebenrock Ka, Rosler Km, Gonzalez E et al (2000) Intraoperative electromyography of the superior gluteal nerve during lateral approach to the hip for arthroplasty: a prospective study of 12 patients. J Arthroplast 15:867–870

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Svensson O, Skold S, Blomgren G (1990) Integrity of the gluteus medius after the transgluteal approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 5:57–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anne Zergiebel for her excellent patient management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Michael Müller, Stephan Tohtz & Carsten Perka

  2. Julius Wolf Institute and Center for Sports Science and Sports Medicine Berlin (CSSB), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Verena Schwachmeyer, William R. Taylor, Georg N. Duda & Markus O. Heller

  3. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Chariteplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Michael Müller

Authors
  1. Michael Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Verena Schwachmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Tohtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William R. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georg N. Duda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carsten Perka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Markus O. Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Müller.

Additional information

M. Müller and V. Schwachmeyer contributed equally to the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller, M., Schwachmeyer, V., Tohtz, S. et al. The direct lateral approach: impact on gait patterns, foot progression angle and pain in comparison with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 725–731 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1467-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1467-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation