Are physical therapy pain levels affected by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial

9Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the difference in pain levels during postoperative physical therapy pathways in patients who underwent a cement less total hip replacement either through a muscle sparing direct anterior approach (DAA), or the classic trans-gluteal lateral approach (LA). One hundred and twelve (112) patients were randomized into two equal groups. Baseline values of myoglobin levels were acquired prior to surgery and repeated at 6 hours postoperatively as a biomarker for muscle damage. Pain levels during the first passive and consecutive 3 active physical therapy sessions were noted using a visual analogue-numeric scale (VAS). Pain levels were also acquired at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year, following a 20-meter (65.6 feet) walking test. Postoperative myoglobin (ng/mL) levels were significantly higher (p< 0.05) in the LA group (335.05±83.54) then the DAA group (237.71±57.54). Pain levels were significantly lower (p<0.001) in the DAA group for both passive (2.5±1.45 vs. 4.28±2.19) and active physical therapy sessions and there was a positive correlation between postoperative myoglobin levels and pain levels until 6 postoperative weeks. There was no significant difference in demographics between the two groups except for gender distribution. The direct anterior approach’s main advantage of being a minimally invasive muscle sparing technique is showing a better rehabilitation experience with lower pain levels during passive and active physical therapy when compared to the classic trans-gluteal lateral approach.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nistor, D. V., Bota, N. C., Caterev, S., & Todor, A. (2020). Are physical therapy pain levels affected by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial. Orthopedic Reviews, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2020.8399

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free