Abstract
Objective
Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA THA) has gained significant popularity in the last decade as it is a muscle-sparing procedure. Modern techniques for DAA THA utilize both a standard operating table and an orthopedic traction table. As the use of an orthopedic traction table shows technical ease and predictability, this article will focus on the use of the orthopedic table or table extension to facilitate DAA THA.
Indications
Primary or secondary arthritis requiring THA; revision surgery—both acetabular and femoral.
Contraindications
Posterior wall hardware requiring removal; posterior mass (tumor) to be removed at surgery: large, overhanging pannus; need for gluteal tendon reconstruction; anterior skin envelope not conducive to DAA.
Surgical technique
The incision is made over the tensor fascia latae. Capsulotomy is performed exposing the hip joint. After osteotomy of the femoral neck, traction is placed on the leg utilizing the orthopedic table and the head is removed. The acetabular cup is inserted. Traction, flexion, and internal reduction are used simultaneously while directing the femoral head into the acetabulum.
Results
In a meta-analysis, operative time (100 vs. 71 min), blood loss (531 vs. 382 ml), and intraoperative fracture rate (1.7 vs. 1.3%) were increased in the traction table cohort. All other complications and outcome measurements were the same. Traction-table related complications such as pudendal nerve palsy and ankle fractures were not found. An assessment of the senior author’s initial 855 DAA THAs (2008–2014) showed a mean operative time of 65 min with a mean blood loss of 238 ml. Operative times decreased to average 56 min. Intraoperative fracture rate was 0.8%. Infection rate was 2.1%. Finally, 1.5% femoral implants did not osseointegrate and required revision after an average of 3.0 years.
Zusammenfassung
Zielsetzung
Die Hüfttotalendoprothese mit direktem anteriorem Zugang („direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty“, DAA-THA) hat im letzten Jahrzehnt erheblich an Ansehen gewonnen, da es sich um ein muskelschonendes Verfahren handelt. Bei modernen Techniken für die DAA-THA werden sowohl ein Standardoperationstisch als auch ein orthopädischer Traktionstisch verwendet. Da sich der Einsatz eines orthopädischen Traktionstisches als anwenderfreundlich und gut planbar erwiesen hat, liegt der Schwerpunkt dieses Manuskripts auf der Verwendung des orthopädischen Tisches bzw. einer Tischverlängerung, um die DAA-THA zu unterstützen.
Indikationen
Primäre oder sekundäre Arthritiden und Arthrosen, die mit einer Hüftgelenktotalendoprothese zu versorgen sind, sowohl azetabuläre als auch femorale Revisionsoperationen.
Kontraindikationen
Posterior gelegenes, zu entfernendes Material, posteriore Läsion (Tumor), die im Rahmen der Operation entfernt werden soll, großer, überhängender Pannus, Notwendigkeit für eine Glutealsehnenrekonstruktion, ungeeigneter Hautmantel im Zugangsgebiet.
Operationstechnik
Die Inzision wird über den Tensor fascia latae gesetzt. Unter Freilegung des Hüftgelenks wird die Kapsulotomie durchgeführt. Nach Osteotomie des Femurhalses wird das Bein mithilfe des Traktionstisches angezogen, der Femurkopf wird entfernt, die Hüftpfanne eingesetzt. Unter gleichzeitiger Anwendung von Traktion, Flexion und interner Reposition wird der Hüftkopf in die Hüftpfanne eingebracht.
Ergebnisse
Nach einer Metaanalyse waren in der Gruppe der am Traktionstisch operierten Patienten die Operationszeit (100 vs. 71 min), der Blutverlust (531 vs. 382 ml) und die intraoperative Frakturrate (1,7 vs. 1,3 %) erhöht. Alle anderen Komplikationen und Ergebnismessungen waren identisch. Traktionstischbedingte Komplikationen, z. B. Pudendusparese und Knöchelfrakturen, wurden nicht gefunden. Eine Auswertung der ersten 855 DAA-THAs des Erstautors (2008–2014) ergab eine mittlere Operationszeit von 65 min bei einem mittleren Blutverlust von 238 ml. Die Operationszeiten verringerten sich auf durchschnittlich 56 min. Die intraoperative Frakturrate betrug 0,8 %. Die Infektionsrate lag bei 2,1 %. Schließlich kam es bei 1,5 % der femoralen Implantate nicht zu einer ossären Integration, sodass nach durchschnittlich 3,0 Jahren eine Revision erforderlich war.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introductory remarks
Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA THA) has gained significant popularity in the last decade as it is a muscle-sparing procedure. Advantages of DAA THA include preservation of dynamic hip stability, hastening patient recovery, and decreasing postoperative pain. The DAA THA was originally described by Robert and Jean Judet in 1950 with the use of an orthopedic traction table [1]. The orthopedic table is still in use in Garches where it was used by a son Thierry Judet and even a son-in-law Marc Siguier. One of Judet’s residents, Emile Letournel continued to use the table for pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery. Letournel furthermore advanced the surgical approach with his tissue-sparing techniques and had specifically two trainees who would later help bring the orthopedic table to the peak of modern arthroplasty—Frederic Laude and Joel Matta. Laude began the technique in Paris on a table he made in his garage in the early 1990s. Matta returned to the US and designed an orthopedic table based on Letournel’s Tasserit, originally performing fracture surgery, and later focusing on DAA THA. Matta et al. was the first to report the use of the orthopedic table in the United States [2].
Modern techniques for DAA THA utilize both a standard operating table and an orthopedic traction table. This manuscript will focus on the use of the orthopedic table or table extension to facilitate DAA THA. It is the author’s preference to use the orthopedic traction table for technical ease and predictability. For example, use of the table essentially eliminates periacetabular retractors for cup preparation by allowing simple self-retainer retractors to be used. Furthermore, femoral preparation is easier given the ability to pull traction with rotation, flexion/extension, and abduction/adduction as needed. Assistants are not necessary nor fatigued with the use of a table.
Surgical principle and objective
DAA THA is performed through the Heuter approach. This interval is an intermuscular, internervous plane allowing direct access to the hip without sectioning muscle. The orthopedic traction table allows the surgeon with reproducible assistance facilitating the THA.
Advantages
Advantages of the orthopedic traction table include:
-
Simple set up/draping (Fig. 1)
-
Positioning time approximately 7 min
-
-
Stabilizes the pelvis and leg for the procedure
-
Decreased need for assistants
-
Positions limb facilitating exposure
-
Allows intraoperative fluoroscopy use
Disadvantages
-
Not universally available
-
Expensive
-
Requires training to operate
-
Table-related complications (pudendal nerve palsy, ankle fracture)
-
Pudendal nerve injury theoretical only. No reported incidence in literature.
-
-
Difficult evaluation of leg length discrepancy
-
Inability to check full range of motion (possible as long a boot removed from the spar)
Indications
-
Primary or secondary arthritis requiring THA
-
Revision surgery—both acetabular and femoral
Contraindications
-
Posterior wall hardware requiring removal
-
Posterior mass (tumor) to be removed at surgery
-
Large, overhanging pannus (relative only, depending on type of skin incision)
-
Need for gluteal tendon reconstruction (better performed through lateral or posterior approach)
-
Anterior skin envelope not conducive to DAA (skin grafts; Fig. 2)
Patient information
As with all THA, potential risks include:
-
Infection
-
Muscle, nerve, vascular injury
-
Fracture
-
Dislocation
-
Hematoma
-
Medical complications (venous thromboembolism, cardiac, pulmonary complications)
-
Unresolved pain syndromes
Risks encountered specific to the use of the orthopedic fracture table include:
-
Pudendal, femoral nerve palsy (Fig. 3)
-
Ankle fracture
-
Knee injury
-
Pressure wounds in perineum from traction post
Preoperative workup
-
There is no specific preoperative workup specific for use of the orthopedic table in DAA THA. Routine medical clearance for the surgery should accompany an orthopedic physical and radiological examination. Preoperative planning is mandatory focusing on leg length. The authors’ preference is to use digital templates to predict implant sizing as well as neck resection length. An assessment of the patient’s preoperative subjective leg length is also performed.
Instruments and implants
Routine instrumentation and implants are readily available for DAA THA. The use of the orthopedic table requires:
-
Orthopedic table
-
Retractors specific for DAA THA
Anesthesia and positioning
-
Spinal or general anesthesia is acceptable for DAA THA. The patient is positioned supine on the orthopedic table (Fig. 1). The operative foot is padded and is held in a traction boot. The contralateral leg is held in a boot or leg holder depending on the table (Fig. 4). The surgery is performed with the primary surgeon and only 1 assistant standing next to the surgeon toward the patient’s chest.
Special surgical considerations
-
As stated previously, the orthopedic traction table is ideal for utilization of intraoperative fluoroscopy. A preincision check of the x‑ray should be performed (Fig. 14). This allows a baseline view of the affected hip before reconstruction. This can then be compared to a postreconstruction x‑ray utilizing an overlay technique (Fig. 15).
-
The senior author uses a fluoroscopic overlay technique to measure leg length and offset for the patient. The patient is asked preoperatively how they feel their leg lengths are. Then a preoperative fluoroscopy x‑ray is obtained and the new hip is reconstructed based on the patient’s desire utilizing an “overlay technique”.
-
A range of motion check can be performed if desired with the leg in or out of the traction spar. A range of motion check is seldom needed however once the hip is reconstructed to an anatomic fashion.
Postoperative management
-
Postoperative management of patients undergoing DAA procedures is uniform with or without use of the orthopedic table. Patients are discharged from hospital once mobilization criteria are met. Patients are allowed to progress as tolerated with use of walking aids the first 2 weeks postoperative. Physical therapy is physician/country dependent. The authors do not utilize physical therapy.
Errors, hazards, complications
-
Intraoperative acetabular or femur fractures must be addressed: acetabular fractures typically occur during cup impaction; most greater trochanter fractures can be managed with observation. Calcar and shaft fractures must be treated with cerclage. The orthopedic traction table is an ideal assistant to fix femoral fractures as the bone is stabilized and can simply be internally and externally rotated to provide the necessary exposure to pass cerclage wires/cables (Fig. 16).
-
Pudendal nerve palsy is a rare injury associated with excessive traction: conservative treatment allows healing
-
Few authors have reported ankle fractures. The etiology of these is the torque applied to the ankle during external rotation of the limb: open reduction with internal fixation may be required if displaced.
Results
Sarraj et al. published the only systemic review of results comparing DAA THA with and without an orthopedic traction table [4]. Their meta-analysis reviewed over 26,000 patients utilizing 45 separate publications. No difference between the two groups was found regarding demographic data—age, sex, body mass index. Operative times (100 min vs 71 min), blood loss (531 ml vs 382 ml), and intraoperative fracture rate (1.7% vs 1.3%) were increased in the traction table cohort. All other complication and outcome measurements were the same. Interestingly, they did not find traction-table-related complications such as pudendal nerve palsy and ankle fractures.
The senior author (TDG) recently reviewed results of his initial 855 DAA THAs (2008–2014). Operative time was mean 65 min with a mean blood loss of 238 ml. Operative times decreased to average 56 min. The intraoperative fracture rate was 0.8%. However, there was a 2.1% infection rate managed either by acute irrigation and debridement with implant retention versus 2‑stage revision depending on timing of infection. Furthermore, 1.5% femoral implants did not osseointegrate and required revision at average 3.0 years postop.
Current orthopedic tables or table extensions are listed in Table 1.
Change history
30 September 2021
An Erratum to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-021-00739-2
References
Judet J, Judet R (1950) The use of an artificial femoral head for arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 32B:166–173
Matta JM, Shahrdar C, Ferguson T (2005) Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:115–124
Hueter C (1883) Grundriss der Chirurgie. F.C.W, Vogel, Leipzig
Sarraj M, Chen A, Ekhtiari S, Rubinger L (2020) Traction table versus standard table total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior approach: a systematic review. Hip Int 30(6):662–672
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
T.D. Goldberg, S. Kreuzer, F. Randelli and G.A. Macheras declare that they have no competing interests.
For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies performed were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.
Additional information
Editor
M. Rudert, Würzburg
Illustrator
R. Himmelhan, Mannheim
Scan QR code & read article online
The original online version of this article was revised: The affiliation details for author F. Randelli were incorrectly given as “Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, University of Milan, Milan, Italy” but should have been “Hip Department (CAD) Gaetano Pini – CTO Orthopedic Institute, University of Milan, Milan, Italy”.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goldberg, T.D., Kreuzer, S., Randelli, F. et al. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty with an orthopedic traction table. Oper Orthop Traumatol 33, 331–340 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-021-00722-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-021-00722-x