The Open Orthopaedics Journal




ISSN: 1874-3250 ― Volume 13, 2019
REVIEW ARTICLE

Muscle Damage in Different Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty According to Serum Markers



Stylianos Tottas1, *, Aliki Fiska2, Ioannis Kougioumtzis1, Athanasios Ververidis1, Konstantinos Tilkeridis1, Georgios I Drosos1
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical School, Democritus University of Thrace, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis, 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece
2 Department of Anatomy, Medical School, Democritus University of Thrace, Dragana, 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece

Abstract

Background:

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is the final treatment of end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Nowadays, THA has become very common, cost- effective and one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures. Recently, surgeons have shifted their interest to approaches according to Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). These approaches are either modifications of conventional approaches or they are designed from the beginning as MIS approaches. Muscle damage and soft tissue damage are issues that concern researchers who perform studies on THA.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to review the literature concerning studies by comparing different approaches using serum and inflammatory markers for muscle and soft tissue damage.

Methods:

We searched the PubMed database in the English language systematically for clinical studies or reviews, comparing muscle damage according to serum markers between two or more approaches in primary total arthroplasty.

Results:

In total, twenty-one studies were included in this review. Although the results are controversial, it seems that MIS approaches in most of the studies were related to lower levels of inflammation markers contrasting with conventional approaches. Nevertheless, this difference in muscle damage is not correlated with a difference in functional scores or other perioperative data and clinical outcomes in all studies.

Conclusion:

The existing literature does not lead to a safe consensus about the superiority of any approach. Therefore, there is still a need for further research with well-designed studies.

Keywords: Approach, Inflammatory markers, Muscle damage, Serum markers, Total hip arthroplasty, Total hip replacement.


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2019
Volume: 13
First Page: 97
Last Page: 108
Publisher Id: TOORTHJ-13-97
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001913010097

Article History:

Received Date: 15/12/2018
Revision Received Date: 04/03/2019
Acceptance Date: 07/03/2019
Electronic publication date: 28/03/2019
Collection year: 2019

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1052
Abstract HTML Views: 649
PDF Downloads: 233
ePub Downloads: 213
Total Views/Downloads: 2147

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 693
Abstract HTML Views: 450
PDF Downloads: 167
ePub Downloads: 141
Total Views/Downloads: 1451
Geographical View

© 2019 Tottas et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical School, Democritus University of Thrace, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis, St. Niarhos Street 1, Dragana, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece;Tel: +30-255-1352209; E-mail: stottasdoc@hotmail.com.





1. INTRODUCTION

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is the final treatment of the end-stage hip osteoarthritis [1Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370(9597): 1508-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7] [PMID: 179643 52]
]. Patients undergo THA to be relieved from pain and to regain the function of their affected hip joint [2Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012; 380(9855): 1768-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2] [PMID: 230218 46]
]. Nowadays, THA has become very common, cost-effective and one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures [2Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012; 380(9855): 1768-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2] [PMID: 230218 46]
-4Mellon SJ, Liddle AD, Pandit H. Hip replacement: landmark surgery in modern medical history. Maturitas 2013; 75(3): 221-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.04.011] [PMID: 23693138]
] and is referred to as “the operation of the century” [1Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370(9597): 1508-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7] [PMID: 179643 52]
].

There is a variety of surgical approaches which are used in THA. The conventional approaches are the anterior approach which was modified and popularized by Smith-Petersen and by siblings Judet J and Judet R [5Smith-Petersen MN. Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1949; 31A(1): 40-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-194931010-00003] [PMID: 181 22877]
, 6Judet J, Judet R. The use of an artificial femoral head for arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1950; 32-B(2): 166-73.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.32B2.166] [PMID: 15422013]
], the anterolateral approach which was initially described by Watson-Jones [7Watson‐Jones R. Fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 1936; 23(92): 787-808.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800239213]
], the lateral approach which was described by McFarland and Osborne [8McFarland B, Osborne G. Approach to the hip: a suggested improvement on Kocher’s method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1954; 36(3): 364-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.36B3.364]
] and modified by Bauer [9Bauer R, Kerschbaumer F, Poisel S, Oberthaler W. The transgluteal approach to the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1979; 95(1-2): 47-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00379169] [PMID: 526126]
] and Hardinge [10Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982; 64(1): 17-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.64B1.7068713] [PMID: 7068 713]
] and the posterior approach which was popularized by Moore [11Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957; 39-A(4): 811-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-195739040-00005] [PMID: 134 38939]
].

In the last two decades, surgeons have shifted their interest in approaches to Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). These approaches are either modifications of conventional approaches or they are designed from the beginning as MIS approaches [12Mirza A J, Lombardi A V Jr, Morris M J, Berend K R. 2014.A mini-anterior approach to the hip for total joint replacement: optimising results: improving hip joint replacement outcomes
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34348]
-14Rasuli KJ, Gofton W. Percutaneously assisted total hip (PATH) and Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) arthroplasty: learning curves and early outcomes. Ann Transl Med 2015; 3(13): 179.
[PMID: 26366396]
]. Procedures with MIS approaches have the objective of minimizing soft tissue damage, reducing postoperative pain and blood loss and improving functional outcome [15Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop 2011; 35(2): 173-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1075-8] [PMID: 20559827]
]. However, there is no consensus among researchers as to which are clear specifications for determining an approach as “minimally invasive”.

Many well-designed studies compare two or more approaches on the basis of different factors and try to prove which is more appropriate and has the least postoperative complications. These factors may be postoperative functional recovery using protocols (Harris Hip Score, HOOS – Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, etc.) [16Taunton MJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Kaufman K, Pagnano MW. John Charnley Award: Randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: Which provides better functional recovery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476(2): 216-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000112] [PMID: 295 29650]
], implant positioning through radiographic evaluation [17Laffosse JM, Accadbled F, Molinier F, Chiron P, Hocine B, Puget J. Anterolateral mini-invasive Versus posterior mini-invasive approach for primary total hip replacement. Comparison of exposure and implant positioning. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128(4): 363-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0385-9] [PMID: 17639434]
], or gait analysis [18Foucher KC, Wimmer MA, Moisio KC, et al. Time course and extent of functional recovery during the first postoperative year after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with two different surgical approaches:A randomized controlled trial. J Biomech 2011; 44(3): 372-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.026] [PMID: 21075378]
].

Furthermore, muscle damage and soft tissue damage are issues that concern researchers who perform studies on THA. Consequently, there have been efforts to understand which approaches cause less muscle damage and minimize the adverse effects after surgery. The extent of muscle damage can be estimated by levels of serum and inflammatory markers [19Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
], Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) analysis [20Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C. 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 2011; 131(2): 179-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0] [PMID: 20490520]
], or surgical techniques in cadaveric studies [21Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Hozack WJ. Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty: Smith-Petersen Versus posterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 453(453): 293-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000238859.46615.34] [PMID: 17 006366]
, 22Amanatullah DF, Masini MA, Roger DJ, Pagnano MW. Greater inadvertent muscle damage in direct anterior approach when compared with the direct superior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B(8): 1036-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37178] [PMID: 274820 14]
]

Many conducted studies include intraoperative evaluations such us blood loss, operative time, days of hospitalization, anesthetic methods, possible complications etc. which are collated with different approaches. The insights gained from the existing literature are confused because there is no clear-cut answer as to which approach confers better clinical results.

The aim of this study is to review the literature concerning studies comparing different approaches using serum muscle and soft tissue as well as inflammatory markers.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive search of the PubMed/Medline database was conducted by two authors (ST) and (GD) separately in June 2018 in the English language (Fig. 1). The search terms were ‘total hip arthroplasty’, ‘total hip replacement’,’ muscle damage’, ‘approach’, ‘serum markers’, ’inflammatory markers’ and were combined using the Boolean operators “AND” or “OR.” The lists of similar articles of the reported articles were also evaluated. Furthermore, the reference lists of the included articles were investigated manually to obtain additional trials.

Fig. (1)
Flow diagram of study selection.


We included studies which were RCT’s, prospective comparative studies. A study was deemed appropriate if it compared two or more approaches to total hip arthroplasty/ replacement and enclosed indispensably serum markers for muscle damage. To enhance the level of evidence we searched reviews comparing muscle damage in THA according to serum markers.

In total, we found 21 articles which are demonstrated in Table 1. We considered that ethical approval was not required for our study, because it was a literature review and we did not include any medical data of our patients.

All abbreviations and their explanations are included in Table 2 for the reader’s convenience.

Table 1
Features of eligible studies.


Table 2
Abbreviations.


Table 3
Abbreviations.


3. SERUM / INFLAMMATORY MARKERS

As THA has evolved, many surgeons have affiliated MIS approaches. One of the challenge researchers cope with, is to determine the invasiveness of every approach. It has been proposed that measurement of serum and inflammatory markers consists of an objective method to assess the extent of the intervention of soft tissue and muscles in different approaches in THA. A variety of humoral mediators and acute-phase proteins may be raised, in response to soft tissue impairment after surgery.

C-Reactive Protein (CRP) is an acute-phase protein secreted by the liver and induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Its serum levels increase in trauma, inflammation or infection [23Cole DS, Watts A, Scott-Coombes D, Avades T. Clinical utility of peri-operative C-reactive protein testing in general surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90(4): 317-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588408X285865] [PMID: 18492397]
, 24Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 2003; 111(12): 1805-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI200318921] [PMID: 12813013]
]. CRP has brief half-time and its levels correspond to the potency and duration of the inflammatory factor [25Bray C, Bell LN, Liang H, et al. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein measurements and their relevance in clinical medicine. WMJ 2016; 115(6): 317-21.
[PMID: 29094869]
].

Erythrocyte sedimentation rates (ESR) express the feature of erythrocytes to adhere together and descend through the blood plasma at the bottom of the container in 60 minutes [26Harrison Michael. Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-reactive Protein Measurements and Their Relevance in Clinical Medicine. WMJ Abnormal laboratory results: Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein 2015.]. ESR levels are increased in inflammation, infection, malignancy, pregnancy, anemia, heart malady, renal failure, collagen vascular disease and any other clinical situation that raise fibrinogen [27Brigden ML. Clinical utility of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Am Fam Physician 1999; 60(5): 1443-50.
[PMID: 10524488]
].

Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) catalyzes the anaerobic transformation of pyruvate to lactate and creatine kinase (CK) catalyzes the ATP-dependent phosphorylation of creatine [28Spriet LL, Howlett RA, Heigenhauser GJ. An enzymatic approach to lactate production in human skeletal muscle during exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32(4): 756-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200004000-00007] [PMID: 10 776894]
, 29Wallimann T, Wyss M, Brdiczka D, Nicolay K, Eppenberger HM. Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes in tissues with high and fluctuating energy demands: the ‘phosphocreatine circuit’ for cellular energy homeostasis. Biochem J 1992; 281(Pt 1): 21-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/bj2810021] [PMID: 1731757]
]. The use of both enzymes has been widespread regarding soft tissue injury [30Kristjansson RP, Oddsson A, Helgason H, et al. Common and rare variants associating with serum levels of creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 10572.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10572] [PMID: 26838040]
].

TNF-a is an acute phase protein generated during the process of inflammation. It interferes in vascular endothelial cells and accelerates the formation of clotting, atherosclerotic plaque and damage of vessels [31Xue M, Qiqige C, Zhang Q, et al. Effects of Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNF-α) and Interleukina 10 (IL-10) on Intercellular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and Cluster of Differentiation 31 (CD31) in Human Coronary Artery Endothelial Cells. Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: 4433-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.906838] [PMID: 29949812]
]. Interleukins (IL) consist of a large category of over 50 cytokines produced by molecules of the immune system. They stimulate intricate immu- nomodulatory activities depending on different causative factors [32Brocker C, Thompson D, Matsumoto A, Nebert DW, Vasiliou V. Evolutionary divergence and functions of the human interleukin (IL) gene family. Hum Genomics 2010; 5(1): 30-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-7364-5-1-30] [PMID: 21106488]
]. In some studies of our review, IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12 and IL-1β were used to evaluate muscle damage.

Myoglobin is a protein that is crucial for intracellular pervasion of oxygen in muscles [33Burmester T, Hankeln T. Function and evolution of vertebrate globins. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 2014; 211(3): 501-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apha.12312] [PMID: 24811692]
] and is elevated in the circulatory system in the case of muscle injury [34Laurence AS. Serum myoglobin and creatine kinase following surgery. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84(6): 763-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013590] [PMID: 10895 753]
].

Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H- FABP) was initially used as a vulnerable biomarker for cardiac muscle injury [35Pelsers MM, Hermens WT, Glatz JF. Fatty acid-binding proteins as plasma markers of tissue injury. Clin Chim Acta 2005; 352(1-2): 15-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2004.09.001] [PMID: 15653098]
]. Afterward, its relation to skeletal muscle trauma was investigated as well. In 2005, Maurice M.A.L. Pelsers et al. in their review inquired into the repercussions of H-FABP levels after other diseases including skeletal muscle injury. They underlined that the concurrent evaluation of H-FABP and myoglobin serum levels is a contributory factor to determine skeletal muscle impairment [35Pelsers MM, Hermens WT, Glatz JF. Fatty acid-binding proteins as plasma markers of tissue injury. Clin Chim Acta 2005; 352(1-2): 15-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2004.09.001] [PMID: 15653098]
].

Aspartate Aminotransferase (ASAT) is an enzyme found principally in liver tissue, but also in other tissues including muscles [36Huang XJ, Choi YK, Im HS, Yarimaga O, Yoon E, Kim HS. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST/GOT) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT/GPT) detection techniques. Sensors (Basel) 2006; 6(7): 756-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s6070756]
]. Consequently, it has been used as a marker for muscle damage as well [37Pilot P, Kerens B, Draijer WF, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery less invasive in total hip replacement? A pilot study. Injury 2006; 37(Suppl. 5): S17-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(07)70007-4] [PMID: 173389 07]
].

Furthermore, skeletal troponin I (sTnI) has been established as a susceptible serum marker of muscle injury [38Chapman DW, Simpson JA, Iscoe S, Robins T, Nosaka K. Changes in serum fast and slow skeletal troponin I concentration following maximal eccentric contractions. J Sci Med Sport 2013; 16(1): 82-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.05.006] [PMID: 22795680]
, 39Sorichter S, Mair J, Koller A, et al. Skeletal troponin I as a marker of exercise-induced muscle damage. J Appl Physiol 1997; 83(4): 1076-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1997.83.4.1076] [PMID: 9338413]
]. Finally, aldolase is an enzyme that catalyzes the transmutation of fructose to glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone and is plentiful in muscle tissue [40Kwak S, Chun Y, Rhyu K, Cha J, Cho Y. Quantitative analysis of tissue injury after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6(3): 279-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.279] [PMID: 25177452]
].

4. RESULTS

4.1. Anterior Approach Versus Posterior Approaches

4.1.1. Difference in Biomarkers

Bergin et al. (2011) conducted a level II comparative study between minimally invasive direct anterior (MIS-DA) and minimally invasive posterior (MIS-PO). CK, IL-6, IL1β and TNF-a markers were evaluated preoperative, immediately after surgery and on 1st and 2nd POD. CRP was measured at 1st and 2nd POD. The results indicated the superiority of MIS-DA, because lower levels of all inflammatory markers were estimated compared with MIS-PO. Especially, CK levels elevated 5.5 times higher with MIS-PO instantly after the operation. According to the evaluation of the outcome, CK levels seemed to correlate with the surgical approach, blood loss and transfusion. IL-6 was related to blood loss and IL-1β with ASA grade, incision extent and transfusion. From all the perioperative patient’s elements, significantly higher operative time and incision length in the posterior group were observed [19Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
].

Zhao et al. (2017) in their RCT highlighted the efficacy of direct anterior approach (DAA) with the posterolateral approach (PLA). The measured serum markers at 1st – 4th (post-operative day (POD) were CK, CRP, IL-6, ESR. DAA was related to statistically significant reduced levels of all markers. Proportionately, patients with DAA needed less time for hospitalization and reported less perceived postoperative pain. Furthermore, functional outcomes using Harris Hip Score (HHS) and University of California Los Angeles activity score (UCLA) indicated the superiority of DAA in 3 months after the operation but no statistically significant discrepancies in 6 months. Conversely, PLA outweighed DAA in terms of less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operative time [41Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
].

Similar results were reported by Poehling-Monaghan et al. (2017), who investigated the association between serum markers and functional outcome in direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to mni-posterior (MPO) approach. They included CK, CRP, IL-6, TNF-a and myoglobin measured at 1st and 2nd POD. Patients who underwent mini-posterior approach had more increased CK, CRP, myoglobin and IL-6 levels than the DAA. Although the greater muscle damage due to serum markers with the mini-posterior approach did not have implications in postoperative functional outcome and VAS pain, no statistically significant differences between two approaches were observed [42Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
].

4.1.2. No Difference in Biomarkers

Pilot et al. (2006) conducted a non-randomized, non-blinded comparative study between minimally invasive direct anterior (MIS-DA) and conventional posterolateral approach (PLA). They measured the inflammatory markers H-FABP, IL-6, ASAT, LDH, CK and myoglobin preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 1st POD and 3rd POD. On the contrary, no functional outcomes were recorded. Researchers concluded that serum marker levels were influenced proportionately in both approaches without significant differences. Quaintly, there was slightly higher blood loss in patients undergoing MIDA approach. The authors assumed that this is a consequence of the required long operative time for MIDA [37Pilot P, Kerens B, Draijer WF, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery less invasive in total hip replacement? A pilot study. Injury 2006; 37(Suppl. 5): S17-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(07)70007-4] [PMID: 173389 07]
].

Rykov et al. (2017) in their RCT compared direct anterior approach (DAA) with a posterolateral approach (PLA). In terms of muscle damage, CRP and CK markers were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 hours, 1st POD, 1st week and 6th week. Furthermore, functional outcomes were assessed with HHS and HOOS preoperatively and 6th week postoperatively. The obtained results revealed no significant discrepancies between the approaches [43Rykov K, Reininga IHF, Sietsma MS, Knobben BAS, Ten Have BLEF. Posterolateral vs direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty (POLADA Trial): a randomized controlled trial to assess differences in serum markers. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(12): 3652-3658.e1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.008] [PMID: 28780222]
].

4.2. Anterior Approach Versus Lateral Approaches

De Anta-Díaz et al. (2016) conducted an RCT comparing direct anterior approach (DAA) with the lateral approach (LA) evaluating soft tissue and muscle damage and functional outcomes. Muscle damage was evaluated with the markers IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, TNF-a, CK, ESR, CRP. Furthermore, researchers incorporated MRI analysis of the affected soft tissue based on a protocol, pre-operatively and 6 months after surgery. DAA was recorded to have statistically significant lower levels regarding IL-6 at 1st POD, IL-8 at 4th POD, CK at 4th POD, CRP at 15th POD and ESR at 30th POD. MRI findings tracked down greater fatty atrophy in all gluteus muscles with LA. On the other hand, although DAA was found to preserve soft tissue intact better, that was not reflected in postoperative functional outcomes and both groups registered with equivalent HHS. The authors inferred that both approaches are efficient and safe, pointing out that the experience of the surgeon is crucial [44De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 2016; 40(10): 2025-30.
[PMID: 26753844]
].

Nistor et al. (2017) in their RCT compared 35 patients with a direct anterior approach (DAA) and 35 patients with a lateral approach (LA). They studied muscle damage using myoglobin at 1st POD and CK and LDH serum markers for the first 5 POD. Additionally, postoperative pain, implant positioning and possible complications were assessed. Myoglobin levels were distinctively lower with DAA, but no significant differences in other markers were noticed. Additionally, they reported no differences in terms of postoperative complications and radiographic evaluation. Nevertheless, DAA was related to less postoperative perceived pain especially the 1st POD [45Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
].

Similar results recorded by Mjaaland et al. (2015) compared minimally invasive direct anterior (MIDA) with direct lateral (LA). The authors did not find distinctive differences in terms of CRP the first four POD between the two approaches, but CK levels were estimated significantly lower with LA at 4th POD. Nevertheless, MIDA was proved more efficient as far as postoperative pain was concerned, because it was associated with less pain at all POD [46Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Pripp AH, Nordsletten L. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res 2015; 33(9): 1305-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.22911] [PMID: 25877694]
].

4.3. Anterolateral Approaches vs. Lateral Approaches

4.3.1. Difference in Biomarkers

Mouilhade et al. (2010) conducted a multicenter prospective study contrasting minimally invasive antero-lateral (Watson-Jones) approach (MIS-AL) with an anterolateral approach with anterior hemimyotomy (AL-HM) in terms of muscle damage with serum markers, functional outcomes, complications and radiographic assessment. Lower CPK levels were recorded at first two POD in patients undergoing MIS-AL, but no significant differences were recorded at myoglobin levels 10 hours postoperatively between the two approaches. MIS-AL revealed better functional outcomes at 6 weeks postoperatively using PMA, HHS, WOMAC. X-rays showed less fluctuation rates in cup inclination with AL-HM. Finally, there were no considerable discrepancies regarding blood loss and complications [47Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97(1): 14-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.013] [PMID: 21236746]
].

In 2011, Inaba et al. (2011) compared the modified Watson-Jones (M-AL) and modified mini-incision direct lateral approach (MIS-LA). CRP and CK levels were measured immediately after the operation, and at 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 14th POD. Significant higher levels of CK were recorded only at 1ST POD with MIS-LA. However, there were no notable differences concerning functional outcome and measured VAS pain [48Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Yukizawa Y, Ishida T, Iwamoto N, Saito T. Little clinical advantage of modified Watson-Jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(7): 1117-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.002] [PMID: 21602025]
].

The same year, Muller et al. (2011) in their RCT compared minimally invasive anterolateral (MIS-AL) Versus modified direct lateral approach (M-LA). They studied soft tissue damage using myoglobin and CK postoperatively at 6 hours, 1st and 4th POD and performing MRI at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. At 6 hour and 1st POD CK levels were higher with M-LA. MRI revealed greater abductor muscle and tendon damage in M-LA. The authors inferred that MIS-AL approach exhibited less obvious soft tissue impairment [20Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C. 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 2011; 131(2): 179-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0] [PMID: 20490520]
].

Matziolis et al. (2011) underlined the superiority of minimally invasive anterolateral (MIS-AL) compared to minimally invasive transgluteal (MIS-TG) approach. Researchers measured skeletal troponin I (sTnI) as a specific and susceptible serum marker for muscle damage and recorded distinct lower levels with MIS-AL approach at 1st POD. Although there were no notable differences in terms of hospitalization, blood loss and complications, the authors emphasized the restriction of muscle interference using AL approach [49Matziolis D, Wassilew G, Strube P, Matziolis G, Perka C. Differences in muscle trauma quantifiable in the laboratory between the minimally invasive anterolateral and transgluteal approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(5): 651-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1190-4] [PMID: 20953874]
].

4.3.2. No Difference in Biomarkers

On the contrary, Landgraeber et al. (2013) in their RCT reported no statistically significant differences postoperatively concerning CRP and CK levels, functional outcomes and perceived pain between minimally invasive anterolateral (MISAL) and conventional lateral (LA). Furthermore, the MIS approach was associated with greater blood loss and longer operative time. The authors indicated the experience of surgeons and predilection for each approach, as the most contributory factors for the success of the operation [50Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Güth S, et al. A prospective randomized peri- and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5(3): e19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2013.e19] [PMID: 24191179]
].

4.4. Posterior Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Posterior Approach

4.4.1. Difference in Biomarkers

Suzuki et al (2004) conducted a comparative study between conventional posterolateral (PLA) and minimally invasive posterolateral (MIS-PLA). CRP, ESR were evaluated at 1st and 2nd postoperative week and CPK at 1st POD, 1st and 2nd postoperative week. CRP and ESR levels were significantly lower at 1st week in the MIS group. However, CPK did not indicate important differences between the two groups. Concerning other postoperative data, MIS approach was associated with significantly shorter operative time, lower blood loss and fewer days of hospitalization. In terms of functional outcomes, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA) revealed similar results [51Suzuki K, Kawachi S, Sakai H, Nanke H, Morita S. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a quantitative assessment of laboratory data and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci 2004; 9(6): 571-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00776-004-0830-3] [PMID: 16228673]
].

In 2014, Kwak et al. (2014) compared the conventional posterolateral (PLA) (15 cm incision length) to a minimally invasive posterolateral (MIS-PLA) (7-8 cm incision length). To examine soft tissue damage, they used CK and aldolase serum markers and IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 cytokines at 1st, 3rd, 7th and 14th POD. The results showed that during the proximate postoperative period (1st and 3rd POD) MIS approach was related to significantly lower levels regarding all markers. In addition, the mean blood loss was statistically higher in patients undergoing PLA. The authors summarized that MIS approach provokes less impairment in soft tissue and restricts systematic inflammation after surgery [40Kwak S, Chun Y, Rhyu K, Cha J, Cho Y. Quantitative analysis of tissue injury after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6(3): 279-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.279] [PMID: 25177452]
].

4.4.2. No Difference in Biomarkers

On the contrary, Fink et al. (2010) in their prospective study compared conventional posterolateral (PLA) and minimal invasive posterolateral (MIS-PLA) approaches. CPK, CK-MM, and myoglobin were recorded on the 1st and 2nd POD and CRP was measured on the 3rd POD. Conversely to the previous study, serum markers did not indicate a meaningful difference in muscle and soft tissue injury between the two groups. Yet, MIS approach was related to lower levels of perceived pain at rest, lower levels of total blood loss and shorter required period of hospitalization [52Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Singer J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5(1): 46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-46] [PMID: 20663200]
].

4.5. Lateral Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Lateral Approach

We found only two studies, comparing the standard lateral (LA) with the minimally invasive lateral approach (MIS-LA).

Mazoochian et al. (2009) measured CK and myoglobin laboratory data 6 hours after surgery, at 1st POD and at 2nd POD, in patients treated with standard lateral (LA) or minimally invasive lateral (modified Hardinge) approach (MISLA). The results showed statistically notable lower myoglobin levels only at 6 h postoperatively with MIS-LA approach. Furthermore, MISLA approach was associated with shorter operating time, less blood loss and better functional results (HHS and WOMAC score) on the day of discharge, 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively [53Mazoochian F, Weber P, Schramm S, Utzschneider S, Fottner A, Jansson V. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled prospective trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129(12): 1633-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0870-4] [PMID: 19424709]
]. In 2014 Dienstknecht et al. (2014) compared muscle damage between conventional lateral, transgluteal approach (Bauer) (LA) and mini-incision (MIS-LA) approach with CRP and CK markers. Serum markers were measured at 2nd and 7th POD. No statistically important differences were observed regarding serum markers. Yet, discernibly lower levels of VAS for pain were observed in the first 6 POD with the MI approach [54Dienstknecht T, Lüring C, Tingart M, Grifka J, Sendtner E. Total hip arthroplasty through the mini-incision (Micro-hip) approach Versus the standard transgluteal (Bauer) approach: a prospective, randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014; 22(2): 168-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200210] [PMID: 25163948]
].

4.6. Standard Lateral and Postero-lateral Versus Minimally Invasive Lateral and Posterolateral

In 2009, Shitama et al. (2009) conducted an RCT of 62 THA. All operations were performed with either lateral or postero-lateral approach and divided into conventional lateral (LA) and posterolateral (PLA) and minimal invasive lateral (MIS-LA) and posterolateral (MIS-PLA) groups. CRP and IL-6 serum markers were recorded preoperatively and the 1st POD. After the assessment of the results, no statistically noteworthy discrepancies were found in soft tissue damage and functional postoperative outcomes. The researchers concluded that the mean longer incision length with standard approaches did not deteriorate postoperatively clinical results [55Shitama T, Kiyama T, Naito M, Shiramizu K, Huang G. Which is more invasive-mini Versus standard incisions in total hip arthroplasty? Int Orthop 2009; 33(6): 1543-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0708-7] [PMID: 19148642]
].

Proportionate results were detected later by Goosen et al. (2011) in their double-blind RCT. They allocated 120 patients into MIS and standard groups, using PLA and AL approach. CK and myoglobin levels were equal before and after surgery in both classes. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of blood loss, complications and implant positioning. Regarding functional outcomes, patients undergoing MIS approaches had only significantly better HHS at 6 weeks postoperatively [56Goosen JH, Kollen BJ, Castelein RM, Kuipers BM, Verheyen CC. Minimally invasive Versus classic procedures in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(1): 200-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1331-7] [PMID: 20352383]
].

4.7. Three Minimal Invasive Approaches

Finally, Cohen et al. (2009) conducted a study comparing three MIS approaches; a modified Watson Jones, minimal invasive posterior (MIS-I) and minimally invasive two-incision (MIS-II) approach. They measured CK, CPK and myoglobin preoperatively and at 1st h, 8th h, 16th h, 1st POD, 36th h, 2nd POD and 3rd POD postoperatively. The authors came to the conclusion that the fluctuation of serum markers levels did not differ significantly between the approaches and proposed that no approach has an important advantage [57Cohen RG, Katz JA, Skrepnik NV. The relationship between skeletal muscle serum markers and primary THA: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(7): 1747-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0809-7] [PMID: 19326181]
].

5. DISCUSSION

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become one of the most successful orthopedic operations. Several approaches to hip joint for primary THA are applied, either conventional approaches (anterior, anterolateral, lateral, posterior) or minimally invasive approaches (MIS modifications of classical approaches or new MIS approaches) are favorable in modern THA. Proponents of these approaches point out that they are designed according to the concept of better postoperative functional outcomes, smaller incision length and less invasiveness. On the other hand, opponents of MIS approaches argue that this term has not been sufficiently clarified, because the evaluations of postoperative results are biased by patient selection, surgeon’s preference and experience and the measurement of different functional protocols. Therefore, MIS term has become known prevalently not for its essential advantages but for marketing reasons. Another objection is that sometimes MIS approaches are correlated with worse perioperative and postoperative data (e.g. longer operative time, larger levels of blood loss or other complications) especially during the learning curve. Consequently, researchers have not met the consensus yet, which is the exact term of MIS approach and which approach confers the best postoperative results. Finally, the choice of the approach used touches on the preference and the experience of every surgeon.

Regarding the evaluation of muscle damage, several methods have been described such as the measurement of serum and inflammatory markers, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and surgical techniques in cadaveric studies. Specifically, considering the currently available literature, which is incorporated in our review, we cannot strongly support the superiority of any approach. However, in most studies, MIS approaches are related to lower levels of muscle damage serum markers. Another objective of our review is to correlate other perioperative and postoperative factors and results (e.g. postoperative pain, blood loss, functional outcome, operative time and other data) with the application of each approach.

As stated above, the anterior approach is probably the most studied approach. In our review, eight studies evaluated anterior or MIS anterior approaches. In five studies [19Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
, 41Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
, 42Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
, 44De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 2016; 40(10): 2025-30.
[PMID: 26753844]
, 45Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
], anterior approach was correlated with lower levels of serum markers compared to posterior approaches or lateral approaches. From these studies, only one reported shorter operative time using DAA [19Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
]. Two studies estimated longer operative time with DAA [41Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
, 45Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
], one study reported no significant differences between the approaches [44De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 2016; 40(10): 2025-30.
[PMID: 26753844]
] and one study did not assess the operating time [42Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
]. No study recorded statistically significant discrepancies in blood loss or transfusion requirements. Regarding postoperative functional outcomes, two studies referred to better results. The first study [41Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
] reported better Harris Hip Score (HHS) and University of California Los Angeles activity score (UCLA) three months postoperatively. The second study [42Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
] registered more steps in the immediate postoperative days in hospital for patients who underwent DAA. Moreover, two studies correlated lower levels of perceived (VAS) pain with patients who underwent DAA [42Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
, 45Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
]. Three studies measured implant positioning [19Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
, 41Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
, 45Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
]. Zhao et al. found that DAA approach was related to the smaller fluctuation of cup inclination and anteversion. Nistor et al. found greater cup abduction in LA approach group. Bergin et al. measured no considerable differences. Only one study [44De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 2016; 40(10): 2025-30.
[PMID: 26753844]
] evaluated MRI findings postoperatively and compared them with muscle damage according to serum markers. Statistically significant discrepancies were observed because lateral approach caused important fatty atrophy in all gluteal muscles and thickness of tensor fasciae latae muscle contrasting with DAA. These results coincided with the estimated lower levels of serum markers of DAA postoperatively. Finally, no studies registered notable differences in regards to postoperative complications.

On the other hand, two studies [37Pilot P, Kerens B, Draijer WF, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery less invasive in total hip replacement? A pilot study. Injury 2006; 37(Suppl. 5): S17-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(07)70007-4] [PMID: 173389 07]
, 43Rykov K, Reininga IHF, Sietsma MS, Knobben BAS, Ten Have BLEF. Posterolateral vs direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty (POLADA Trial): a randomized controlled trial to assess differences in serum markers. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(12): 3652-3658.e1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.008] [PMID: 28780222]
] found no considerable differences in serum markers between anterior and posterior approaches. Contrary to their expectations, Pilot P et al. (2006) and colleagues noticed equivalent muscle damage due to serum maker in both approaches, more required operating time and relatively higher blood loss postoperatively when using MIS anterior approach. Similar outcomes were recorded by Rykov et al. (2017), as DAA was associated with longer operative time and slightly higher rates of blood loss. Lastly, no considerable differences were recorded in terms of complications.

Merely one study [46Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Pripp AH, Nordsletten L. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res 2015; 33(9): 1305-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.22911] [PMID: 25877694]
] reported higher CK levels at 4th POD using the anterior approach compared to the lateral approach. Furthermore, the duration of surgery was longer with MIDA. Conversely, the perceived pain was significantly lower at all POD.

MIS anterolateral approach was evaluated in six studies. In four studies, [47Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97(1): 14-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.013] [PMID: 21236746]
, 48Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Yukizawa Y, Ishida T, Iwamoto N, Saito T. Little clinical advantage of modified Watson-Jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(7): 1117-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.002] [PMID: 21602025]
, 20Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C. 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 2011; 131(2): 179-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0] [PMID: 20490520]
, 49Matziolis D, Wassilew G, Strube P, Matziolis G, Perka C. Differences in muscle trauma quantifiable in the laboratory between the minimally invasive anterolateral and transgluteal approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(5): 651-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1190-4] [PMID: 20953874]
] MIS-AL was associated with less invasiveness according to serum markers compared to MIS LA, AL approach with anterior hemimyotomy (AL-HM), MIS transgluteal (TG) or modified DLA. All these studies observed imperceptible differences regarding blood loss and postoperative complications between the approaches. One study recorded significantly longer operative duration approach and perceived pain using MIS-AL [47Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97(1): 14-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.013] [PMID: 21236746]
]. The same researchers also found better functional scores six weeks postoperatively with MIS AL. In addition, Michael Muller et al. 2011 found in their follow-up examination significantly higher rates of negative Trendelenburg sign 1 year after surgery in patients undergoing ALMI. Three studies [47Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97(1): 14-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.013] [PMID: 21236746]
-49Matziolis D, Wassilew G, Strube P, Matziolis G, Perka C. Differences in muscle trauma quantifiable in the laboratory between the minimally invasive anterolateral and transgluteal approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(5): 651-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1190-4] [PMID: 20953874]
] dealt with implant positioning through radiographic evaluation and only one revealed higher fluctuation in cup inclination with MIS AL [49Matziolis D, Wassilew G, Strube P, Matziolis G, Perka C. Differences in muscle trauma quantifiable in the laboratory between the minimally invasive anterolateral and transgluteal approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(5): 651-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1190-4] [PMID: 20953874]
].

Conversely, in two studies [50Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Güth S, et al. A prospective randomized peri- and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5(3): e19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2013.e19] [PMID: 24191179]
, 57Cohen RG, Katz JA, Skrepnik NV. The relationship between skeletal muscle serum markers and primary THA: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(7): 1747-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0809-7] [PMID: 19326181]
] no significant differences were observed in muscle damage contrasting with MIS posterior and MIS two incision or conventional lateral (LA) approaches. Cohen et al recorded shorter operative time and lower rates of blood loss at MIS-AL group. Quaintly, Landgraeber et al estimated longer duration of surgery and higher levels of blood loss in MIS-AL group.

Three studies dealt with the comparison between standard posterior and MIS posterior approaches. Two studies [40Kwak S, Chun Y, Rhyu K, Cha J, Cho Y. Quantitative analysis of tissue injury after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6(3): 279-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.279] [PMID: 25177452]
, 51Suzuki K, Kawachi S, Sakai H, Nanke H, Morita S. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a quantitative assessment of laboratory data and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci 2004; 9(6): 571-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00776-004-0830-3] [PMID: 16228673]
] ratified the eminence of the MIS technique, but one study [52Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Singer J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5(1): 46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-46] [PMID: 20663200]
] did not come up with significant differences in serum markers. All three studies punctuated the predominance of MIS approach. Specifically, the MIS technique was correlated with lower levels of blood loss in all studies. Two studies [51Suzuki K, Kawachi S, Sakai H, Nanke H, Morita S. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a quantitative assessment of laboratory data and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci 2004; 9(6): 571-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00776-004-0830-3] [PMID: 16228673]
, 52Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Singer J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5(1): 46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-46] [PMID: 20663200]
] showed less required duration of hospitalization for the patients who had undergone MIS approach. Suzuki et al recorded less operative time for MIS approach and finally, Fink et al estimated less perceived pain.

Moreover, from the two studies comparing conventional lateral approach and MIS lateral approach, one underlined the efficacy of MIS method [53Mazoochian F, Weber P, Schramm S, Utzschneider S, Fottner A, Jansson V. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled prospective trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129(12): 1633-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0870-4] [PMID: 19424709]
], but the other study [54Dienstknecht T, Lüring C, Tingart M, Grifka J, Sendtner E. Total hip arthroplasty through the mini-incision (Micro-hip) approach Versus the standard transgluteal (Bauer) approach: a prospective, randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014; 22(2): 168-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200210] [PMID: 25163948]
] deduced that both approaches cause similar muscle damage. Yet, both studies underlined the superiority of MIS LA approach. Mazoochian et al demonstrated the advantages of MIS method in terms of shorter operating time, lower blood loss and better functional results (HHS and WOMAC) 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. On the other hand, Dienstknecht et al registered lower rates of VAS pain and shorter required surgical time in the MIS group.

Finally, two studies compared simultaneously conventional lateral (LA) or postero-lateral (PLA) approaches with minimal invasive lateral (MIS-LA) and posterolateral (MIS-PLA). The results did not demonstrate significant differences in serum markers [55Shitama T, Kiyama T, Naito M, Shiramizu K, Huang G. Which is more invasive-mini Versus standard incisions in total hip arthroplasty? Int Orthop 2009; 33(6): 1543-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0708-7] [PMID: 19148642]
, 56Goosen JH, Kollen BJ, Castelein RM, Kuipers BM, Verheyen CC. Minimally invasive Versus classic procedures in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(1): 200-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1331-7] [PMID: 20352383]
]. Both studies calculated longer operative time in MIS groups. Concerning the other perioperative and postoperative data, there were no statistically significant differences.

Despite the useful details which emerged from our review, we can nevertheless elucidate that there are some limitations to our article. Concerning our research, we included only the Pubmed database in the English language. On the other hand, some of the included studies had methodological limitations and they are susceptible to bias. These limitations are the comparison of unequal samples and unprivileged rando- mization. Specifically, some researchers choose their patients according to specific criteria in order to promote an approach. For example, in some studies patients with high body mass index (BMI) do not undergo THA with the anterior approach. Therefore, the anterior approach is correlated with less invasiveness and better postoperative outcomes compared with other approaches without sufficient evidence. In addition, most studies do not cope with bone impairment during implant positioning and to what extent this process influences the postoperative inflammation. Furthermore, the methodology of each of the included studies incorporated the assessment of different serum markers in different time periods. Consequently, no markers were found with a distinct specification in muscle damage. Moreover, some studies did not correlate muscle damage and other postoperative outcomes in order to optimize the efficiency of the approaches. Finally, there is still a lot of disagreement over the highly contentious issue of postoperative functional protocols. Some researchers use predefined protocols which are not consolidated and culminate in eventual better results for specific approaches.

At this point, we must underline that the efficacy of any approach is not based mainly on the measurement of muscle damage and its intervention. The contributing factors that seem to have great importance are the improved postoperative functional outcomes, the small levels of perceived pain and the patient’s satisfaction. Because a great deal of controversy surrounds the performance of MIS approaches or conventional muscle-sparing approaches, we should point out that the experience and the training of every surgeon constitute the most significant factors for the success of THA.

CONCLUSION

THA has proved a very successful operation, which enables patients to enhance their motility and subsequently their life’s quality. MIS approaches in primary THA have gained ground in the last decades regarding the conception of respect of soft tissue, restricted blood loss, limited perceived pain and rapid recovery. In our review, we focused on investigating which approach is more efficient in terms of reducing muscle and soft tissue damage as is expressed by serum markers. It seems that MIS approaches were related in most of the studies with a lower level of inflammation markers contrasting with conventional approaches. Yet, the existing literature did not lead to a safe consensus about the superiority of any approach. Consequently, further research based on large well-designed studies is required in order to further explicate the efficacy and safety of MIS approaches.

DISCLOSURE

The authors and their immediate families did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

REFERENCES

[1] Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370(9597): 1508-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7] [PMID: 179643 52]
[2] Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012; 380(9855): 1768-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2] [PMID: 230218 46]
[3] Caton J, Prudhon JL. Over 25 years survival after Charnley’s total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2011; 35(2): 185-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1197-z] [PMID: 21249358]
[4] Mellon SJ, Liddle AD, Pandit H. Hip replacement: landmark surgery in modern medical history. Maturitas 2013; 75(3): 221-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.04.011] [PMID: 23693138]
[5] Smith-Petersen MN. Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1949; 31A(1): 40-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-194931010-00003] [PMID: 181 22877]
[6] Judet J, Judet R. The use of an artificial femoral head for arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1950; 32-B(2): 166-73.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.32B2.166] [PMID: 15422013]
[7] Watson‐Jones R. Fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 1936; 23(92): 787-808.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800239213]
[8] McFarland B, Osborne G. Approach to the hip: a suggested improvement on Kocher’s method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1954; 36(3): 364-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.36B3.364]
[9] Bauer R, Kerschbaumer F, Poisel S, Oberthaler W. The transgluteal approach to the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1979; 95(1-2): 47-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00379169] [PMID: 526126]
[10] Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982; 64(1): 17-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.64B1.7068713] [PMID: 7068 713]
[11] Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957; 39-A(4): 811-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-195739040-00005] [PMID: 134 38939]
[12] Mirza A J, Lombardi A V Jr, Morris M J, Berend K R. 2014.A mini-anterior approach to the hip for total joint replacement: optimising results: improving hip joint replacement outcomes
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34348]
[13] Wojciechowski P, Kusz D, Kopeć K, Borowski M. Minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2007; 9(1): 1-7.
[PMID: 17605194]
[14] Rasuli KJ, Gofton W. Percutaneously assisted total hip (PATH) and Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) arthroplasty: learning curves and early outcomes. Ann Transl Med 2015; 3(13): 179.
[PMID: 26366396]
[15] Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop 2011; 35(2): 173-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1075-8] [PMID: 20559827]
[16] Taunton MJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Kaufman K, Pagnano MW. John Charnley Award: Randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: Which provides better functional recovery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476(2): 216-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000112] [PMID: 295 29650]
[17] Laffosse JM, Accadbled F, Molinier F, Chiron P, Hocine B, Puget J. Anterolateral mini-invasive Versus posterior mini-invasive approach for primary total hip replacement. Comparison of exposure and implant positioning. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128(4): 363-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0385-9] [PMID: 17639434]
[18] Foucher KC, Wimmer MA, Moisio KC, et al. Time course and extent of functional recovery during the first postoperative year after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with two different surgical approaches:A randomized controlled trial. J Biomech 2011; 44(3): 372-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.026] [PMID: 21075378]
[19] Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior Versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(15): 1392-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00557] [PMID: 21915544]
[20] Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C. 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 2011; 131(2): 179-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0] [PMID: 20490520]
[21] Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Hozack WJ. Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty: Smith-Petersen Versus posterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 453(453): 293-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000238859.46615.34] [PMID: 17 006366]
[22] Amanatullah DF, Masini MA, Roger DJ, Pagnano MW. Greater inadvertent muscle damage in direct anterior approach when compared with the direct superior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B(8): 1036-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37178] [PMID: 274820 14]
[23] Cole DS, Watts A, Scott-Coombes D, Avades T. Clinical utility of peri-operative C-reactive protein testing in general surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90(4): 317-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588408X285865] [PMID: 18492397]
[24] Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 2003; 111(12): 1805-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI200318921] [PMID: 12813013]
[25] Bray C, Bell LN, Liang H, et al. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein measurements and their relevance in clinical medicine. WMJ 2016; 115(6): 317-21.
[PMID: 29094869]
[26] Harrison Michael. Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-reactive Protein Measurements and Their Relevance in Clinical Medicine. WMJ Abnormal laboratory results: Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein 2015.
[27] Brigden ML. Clinical utility of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Am Fam Physician 1999; 60(5): 1443-50.
[PMID: 10524488]
[28] Spriet LL, Howlett RA, Heigenhauser GJ. An enzymatic approach to lactate production in human skeletal muscle during exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32(4): 756-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200004000-00007] [PMID: 10 776894]
[29] Wallimann T, Wyss M, Brdiczka D, Nicolay K, Eppenberger HM. Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes in tissues with high and fluctuating energy demands: the ‘phosphocreatine circuit’ for cellular energy homeostasis. Biochem J 1992; 281(Pt 1): 21-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/bj2810021] [PMID: 1731757]
[30] Kristjansson RP, Oddsson A, Helgason H, et al. Common and rare variants associating with serum levels of creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 10572.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10572] [PMID: 26838040]
[31] Xue M, Qiqige C, Zhang Q, et al. Effects of Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNF-α) and Interleukina 10 (IL-10) on Intercellular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and Cluster of Differentiation 31 (CD31) in Human Coronary Artery Endothelial Cells. Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: 4433-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.906838] [PMID: 29949812]
[32] Brocker C, Thompson D, Matsumoto A, Nebert DW, Vasiliou V. Evolutionary divergence and functions of the human interleukin (IL) gene family. Hum Genomics 2010; 5(1): 30-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-7364-5-1-30] [PMID: 21106488]
[33] Burmester T, Hankeln T. Function and evolution of vertebrate globins. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 2014; 211(3): 501-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apha.12312] [PMID: 24811692]
[34] Laurence AS. Serum myoglobin and creatine kinase following surgery. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84(6): 763-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013590] [PMID: 10895 753]
[35] Pelsers MM, Hermens WT, Glatz JF. Fatty acid-binding proteins as plasma markers of tissue injury. Clin Chim Acta 2005; 352(1-2): 15-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2004.09.001] [PMID: 15653098]
[36] Huang XJ, Choi YK, Im HS, Yarimaga O, Yoon E, Kim HS. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST/GOT) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT/GPT) detection techniques. Sensors (Basel) 2006; 6(7): 756-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s6070756]
[37] Pilot P, Kerens B, Draijer WF, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery less invasive in total hip replacement? A pilot study. Injury 2006; 37(Suppl. 5): S17-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(07)70007-4] [PMID: 173389 07]
[38] Chapman DW, Simpson JA, Iscoe S, Robins T, Nosaka K. Changes in serum fast and slow skeletal troponin I concentration following maximal eccentric contractions. J Sci Med Sport 2013; 16(1): 82-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.05.006] [PMID: 22795680]
[39] Sorichter S, Mair J, Koller A, et al. Skeletal troponin I as a marker of exercise-induced muscle damage. J Appl Physiol 1997; 83(4): 1076-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1997.83.4.1076] [PMID: 9338413]
[40] Kwak S, Chun Y, Rhyu K, Cha J, Cho Y. Quantitative analysis of tissue injury after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6(3): 279-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.279] [PMID: 25177452]
[41] Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(11): 3421-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056] [PMID: 28662957]
[42] Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475(2): 452-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2] [PMID: 27233505]
[43] Rykov K, Reininga IHF, Sietsma MS, Knobben BAS, Ten Have BLEF. Posterolateral vs direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty (POLADA Trial): a randomized controlled trial to assess differences in serum markers. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(12): 3652-3658.e1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.008] [PMID: 28780222]
[44] De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 2016; 40(10): 2025-30.
[PMID: 26753844]
[45] Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop 2017; 41(11): 2245-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8] [PMID: 28439629]
[46] Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Pripp AH, Nordsletten L. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res 2015; 33(9): 1305-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.22911] [PMID: 25877694]
[47] Mouilhade F, Matsoukis J, Oger P, Mandereau C, Brzakala V, Dujardin F. Component positioning in primary total hip replacement: a prospective comparative study of two anterolateral approaches, minimally invasive versus gluteus medius hemimyotomy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97(1): 14-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.013] [PMID: 21236746]
[48] Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Yukizawa Y, Ishida T, Iwamoto N, Saito T. Little clinical advantage of modified Watson-Jones approach over modified mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(7): 1117-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.002] [PMID: 21602025]
[49] Matziolis D, Wassilew G, Strube P, Matziolis G, Perka C. Differences in muscle trauma quantifiable in the laboratory between the minimally invasive anterolateral and transgluteal approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(5): 651-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1190-4] [PMID: 20953874]
[50] Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Güth S, et al. A prospective randomized peri- and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5(3): e19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2013.e19] [PMID: 24191179]
[51] Suzuki K, Kawachi S, Sakai H, Nanke H, Morita S. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a quantitative assessment of laboratory data and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci 2004; 9(6): 571-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00776-004-0830-3] [PMID: 16228673]
[52] Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Singer J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5(1): 46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-46] [PMID: 20663200]
[53] Mazoochian F, Weber P, Schramm S, Utzschneider S, Fottner A, Jansson V. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled prospective trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129(12): 1633-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0870-4] [PMID: 19424709]
[54] Dienstknecht T, Lüring C, Tingart M, Grifka J, Sendtner E. Total hip arthroplasty through the mini-incision (Micro-hip) approach Versus the standard transgluteal (Bauer) approach: a prospective, randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014; 22(2): 168-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200210] [PMID: 25163948]
[55] Shitama T, Kiyama T, Naito M, Shiramizu K, Huang G. Which is more invasive-mini Versus standard incisions in total hip arthroplasty? Int Orthop 2009; 33(6): 1543-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0708-7] [PMID: 19148642]
[56] Goosen JH, Kollen BJ, Castelein RM, Kuipers BM, Verheyen CC. Minimally invasive Versus classic procedures in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(1): 200-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1331-7] [PMID: 20352383]
[57] Cohen RG, Katz JA, Skrepnik NV. The relationship between skeletal muscle serum markers and primary THA: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(7): 1747-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0809-7] [PMID: 19326181]

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open