Minimal or Less Invasive Approaches

Limited medial parapatellar incision – 2–3 inch medial incision; Best for unicompartmental implant; patellar visualization poor; Less invasive but limited visualization therefore overall joint inspection is compromised.

MIS TKR approaches - Mini midvastus approach popularised by S.B. Haas - Ideal BMI 30 or less; Incision length 10cm; Vastus incision about 2–3cm; Vastus incision beyond 5–6cm places motor branch to VMO at risk; Coupled with downsized cutting blocks, allows predictable ability to perform TKR; Sliding window concept; Patella eversion not necessary.

Mid Subvastus approach – 10cm skin incision; Sub vastus dissection up to septum (watch for bleeders!); VERY difficult in muscular males!

Standard Incisions

Standard medial parapatellar approach - Familiar to most surgeons; Medial arthrotomy facilitates exposure for almost all procedures; Can become more extensile by incising the quad tendon further proximal; Release of posteromedial capsule and semi-membraneosus allows exposure posteriorly.

Quad snip - Used occasionally in the fixed varus, flexion contracted knee; More commonly used in revisions; Allows patella eversion without risk of distal avulsion; Motor strength appears to return to baseline level postoperatively.

V-Y quadriceps turndown - Technique: initial medial parapatellar arthrotomy, an oblique tenotomy angled toward the tendinous portion of the vastus lateralis and then extended distally; The quadriceps segment is than retracted downward to expose the joint; Tenotomy is closed with robust non-absorbable sutures holding the knee in extension; Postoperative flexion is dictated by integrity of repair while flexing knee at time of closure. Disadvantages include extensor lag, as well as effecting ultimate ROM.

Tibial tubercle osteotomy a la Whiteside - Medial arthrotomy; Tubercle segment is 6–8cm long, 2cm wide and 1–1.5cm thick; Segment is beveled distally so as to avoid stress riser; Leave lateral soft tissue intact; Closure with wires preferred although screws or cables have been used as well.

Instability after total hip arthroplasty is the primary cause for revision surgery and is a frequent complication following revision surgery for any reason (Bozic et al, JBJS 2009). Surgical management of the unstable hip has not been uniformly successful with the best results occurring in those hips in which an identifiable cause of instability can be determined (Daly & Morrey, JBJS 1992). It was these sobering findings that led to the development of and increased use of constrained acetabular components.

While the results of revision surgery for instability using constrained components have been encouraging (Shapiro, Padgett, Sculco J Arthroplasty 2003) with a re-dislocation rate of less than 3%, reoperation for other reasons have noted to increase with time. The commonly used tripolar configuration has been susceptible to bearing damage at both the inner and outer bearing surface by the nature of the constrained mechanism (Shah, Padgett, Wright, J Arthroplasty 2009). In addition, we have noted instances of fixation failure directly related to the constrained acetabular device either from loss of implant fixation to the pelvis with or without cement (Yun, Padgett, Dorr, J Arthroplasty 2005).

The observation of these failure modes ranging from either fixation failures to overt biomaterial failure have led us to be extremely cautious in the “routine” use of constrained liners in revision THR.

Stratification of the recurrent dislocator has been nicely described by Wera et al (J Arthroplasty, 2012). The etiology of dislocation includes: acetabular malposition, femoral malposition, abductor deficiency, impingement, late bearing wear and unknown causes.

Implant instability due to malposition, impingement, and poly wear should be revised as appropriate to correct the underlying problem in addition to the use of either larger diameter heads. The emerging use of dual mobility articulations remains to be determined. However, the indiscriminate use of constrained liners should be avoided as the risk of problems outweighs their benefits.

Due to issues related to osteolysis which became increasingly evident in the 1990's, approaches to combat wear focused upon either improving ultra-high molecular grade polyethylene or to abandon it and employ alternative bearings: metal upon metal or ceramic upon ceramic (COC).

Ceramics have played a role in hip bearings for decades with much of the experience coming from Europe. While there is consistent evidence of low wear rates in this bearing couple due to its surface hardness, wettability and resultant low friction, problems unique to this bearing couple were noted: a small but real incidence of fracture, surface damage due to metal transfer and stripe wear as well as the unique issue of squeaking. What we have learned is that these hard bearings (either COC or Metal on Metal) despite being able to use larger diameter heads, are exquisitely sensitive to component position and orientation.

With the tremendous improvements in 2nd and now 3rd generation crosslinked polyethylenes demonstrating vastly reduced wear rates and having none of the issues of fracture, stripe wear, or squeaking, it remains unclear what role ceramic bearings have in modern use. Until the aforementioned issues are resolved, ceramic on ceramic bearings in the young patient should be used with caution. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: incidence of instability and noise.

Introduction

In total hip arthroplasty, the positioning of the acetabular cup, in particular, has been shown to play an important role in the survivorship of the prosthetic joint. The commonly accepted “safe zone” extends from 5–30° of anteversion to 30–50° of inclination. However, several studies have utilized a more restrictive safe zone of 5–25° of anteversion and 30–45° of inclination, a modification of the Lewinnek zone. Many attempts have been made to develop a more reliable method of positioning the acetabular component. Robotic-assisted surgery is one such method. The purpose of this study was to compare the resulting position of the acetabular component after robotic-assisted surgery with the intraoperative robotic data to determine if improved accuracy can be achieved with the robotic-assisted method.

1.

Role of enabling technologies in THA: Setting the stage

Instability after total hip arthroplasty is the primary cause for revision surgery and is a frequent complication following revision surgery for any reason (Bozic et al, JBJS 2009). Surgical management of the unstable hip has not been uniformly successful with the best results occurring in those hips in which an identifiable cause of instability can be determined (Daly & Morrey, JBJS 1992). It was these sobering findings that lead to the development of and increased use of constrained acetabular components.

While the results of revision surgery for instability using constrained components have been encouraging (Shapiro, Padgett, Sculco, J Arthroplasty 2003) with a re-dislocation rate of less than 3%, reoperation for other reasons have noted to increase with time. The commonly used tripolar configuration has been susceptible to bearing damage at both the inner and outer bearing surface by the nature of the constrained mechanism (Shah, Padgett, Wright, J Arthroplasty 2009). In addition, we have noted instances of fixation failure directly related to the constrained acetabular device either from loss of implant fixation to the pelvis with or without cement (Yun, Padgett, Dorr, J Arthroplasty 2005).

The observation of these failure modes ranging from either fixation failures to overt biomaterial failure have lead us to be extremely cautious in the “routine” use of constrained liners in revision THR. Implant instability due to poor position should be revised as appropriate to correct alignment. The use of either larger diameter heads or the emerging use of dual mobility articulations seems more appropriate at this time.