EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2024) SICOT-J, 10 (2024) 33 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 10, 2024
Article Number 33
Number of page(s) 8
Section Hip
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2024030
Published online 06 September 2024

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2024

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

The piriformis (PF) is the most superior of the hip short external rotator (SERs) muscles [1]. During a standard posterior approach for THA, the PF tendon is resected to access the hip joint. It is usually reattached to the greater trochanter at the end of the procedure [1]. However, muscle-sparing THA techniques preserving PF have been proposed to improve hip stability and enhance postoperative recovery [1–11].

The Superior Transverse Atraumatic Anatomic Reconstruction (STAR) approach is a muscle-sparing posterior THA technique that preserves PF, iliotibial band, and quadratus femoris [1]. The first and only STAR approach study reported shorter hospital stays, lower transfusion rates, and earlier functional improvement compared to the Direct Superior Approach (DSA), a non-piriformis preserving posterior approach [1]. The authors supported that STAR provided excellent acetabular and proximal femoral exposure using any implant or technique with standard instrumentation [1]. To date, the safety and efficacy of the STAR approach have not undergone evaluation in a large cohort study.

Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the STAR approach for THA. We prospectively assessed a cohort of 522 consecutive patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis who underwent elective primary or complex primary THA using the STAR approach, all performed by a senior surgeon. Our primary objectives were to evaluate efficacy by measuring implantation accuracy using postoperative radiographs and safety by recording postoperative complication rates, including dislocation and infection, at a mean follow-up of two years.

Materials and methods

This single-blinded, mid-term follow-up study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Academic Institutional Scientific Research Board (196/2024). Data were collected from the regional academic arthroplasty registry (ART).

The study involved adult patients (>18 years) with unilateral end-stage hip arthritis who underwent elective primary or complex primary unilateral THA via the STAR approach between May 2019 and December 2023. Complex primary included developmental deformities, dysplasia Hartofylakidis type A and B and post-traumatic or osteotomy arthritis. Patients with severe hip dysplasia, revision surgery, or malignancies were excluded.

Between May 2019 and December 2023, the senior surgeon performed 531 unilateral THAs with the STAR approach using non-offset reamers and broaches. The STAR surgical technique has been previously described in detail [1]. Based on the preoperative spinopelvic classification using standing and sitting lateral views, the surgeon aimed to put the acetabular cup between 40–500 inclination and 15–200 anteversion and the stem in a neutral position [12].

All patients met the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were unavailable for follow-up, mainly because they resided in other countries. At the last follow-up, complete data were available for 522 patients, representing 98.3% of patients. Table 1 displays the demographics and other baseline patients’ data. Most patients included in the study were females, accounting for 63.6% of the total number. The mean age of patients was 65.6 years. Most of them (91.6%) were classified as having ASA scores I and II. Out of all the operations, nearly one-third were primary complex THAs, mainly dysplasia and posttraumatic hip arthritis. The follow-up period they were ranged from three months to five years, with an average of 2.13 years. The mean duration of the operation, measured from the initial incision to wound closure, was 68 min. 91.8% of the patients were discharged by the second postoperative day. Table 2 provides information on surgical intraoperative and radiological data. Most patients (98.5%) underwent uncemented or hybrid THA, with over half receiving uncemented THAs. 81.6% of the patients underwent unconstrained THAs with ceramic on highly crossed-linked polyethylene liner. Dual mobility implants were inserted in almost one-fifth of the THAs in 2B spinopelvic cases. 99% of the femoral stems were collarless. In nearly all cases (94.8%), one or two screws were utilized to secure the cup. A 36 mm femoral head diameter was used in 61.5% of the patients. Table 3 presents other implants’ characteristics.

Table 1

The demographics and clinical data of the patients.

Table 2

Operative and postoperative radiological data of the patients.

Table 3

Implant type, size and other characteristics.

Perioperative management

All patients were given general anaesthesia. They received intravenous cefuroxime 1.5 g three times and teicoplanin 400 mg twice daily, once before surgery and for 24 h postoperatively. All patients received one gram of tranexamic acid intravenously preoperatively, followed by an 8 mg dose of dexamethasone eight hours postoperatively. No drains were used. Low-molecular-weight heparin was administered for one month postoperatively. Pain management involved 1 g paracetamol and 100 mg tramadol intravenously three times daily and 50 mg of dexketoprofen twice daily for 24–48 h after surgery. Patients were mobilized immediately postoperatively, ambulating with partial weight bearing for 20 days.

Perioperative evaluation and follow-up

Two independent orthopaedic surgeons who were not involved in the surgical procedures followed up on all patients and conducted the clinical and radiological assessments. The surgeon did not participate in the clinical and radiological assessment. Patients’ demographic, perioperative and postoperative data, including operative time, implant type and sizes, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion rate, complication, re-admission and revision rate, were collected. They measured the cup inclination and anteversion, stem alignment and leg length discrepancy (LLD) using the one-month postoperative standardised supine anteroposterior (AP) pelvic X-rays centred over the pubis with the hips in internal rotation (150), including the whole stem length and width.

Cup inclination was evaluated by the angle between the horizontal line connecting the bottom of teardrops and the line indicating the acetabular opening plane [13]. The acetabular anteversion was measured using the method presented by Widmer et al. [14]. The Khalily method was used to assess the femoral stem alignment by measuring the angle between the femoral shaft’s medial endosteal cortex line and the femoral stem long axis in the frontal plane [15]. The Danoff criteria were used to evaluate the safe acetabular zone for implantation [16]. The distance between the lesser trochanters’ tip and the inter-teardrop line was measured to assess the LLD [17].

Statistical analysis

Standard descriptive methods were utilized for data analysis. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests verified the normality of the data distribution. Mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR) were used to present parametric and non-parametric continuous variables, respectively. Categorical values were presented with absolute and relative frequencies. Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio software (PBC, version 1.4.1103).

Results

Most cups and stems were impeccably implanted in this cohort, and leg length discrepancy (LLD) was minimal. In the one-month postoperative radiological data, the mean cup inclination was 42.80 (±4.9). The mean cup anteversion was 19.90 (±8.8). 94.1% of the hips fell within the safe zone of inclination; 31 cups were implanted outside, mainly dysplastic hips. According to the Khalily method for evaluating coronal stem alignment, 97.5% of the implants were placed in a neutral position, while only 2.5% were in varus. The mean LLD was 3.3 ± 6.3 mm (Table 2).

The STAR procedure had a minimal complication rate and was considered safe. Of the patients, 58 (11.1%) received a blood transfusion unit during their hospital stay. There were no intraoperative complications, sciatic nerve palsies, thromboembolic events or periprosthetic fractures during the follow-up period. There was a deep infection case in a 63-year-old man that was managed with a two-stage revision. A hip dislocation (0.19%) was recorded in a frail 80-year-old woman who fell from her height during personal hygiene in the bathroom on the first postoperative day. The patient underwent closed reduction and had a hip spica for one month to effectively manage the dislocation. A morbidly obese and two immunosuppressed patients developed a superficial wound infection that was treated with irrigation, debridement, wound care, and oral antibiotics.

Discussion

Our study reports outcomes of 522 unilateral primary and primary complex THAs performed by a senior surgeon using the STAR approach. This study is the first to report on the STAR approach clinical efficacy and safety in a large cohort. The surgeon achieved excellent surgical precision by successfully inserting the implants with high accuracy. The complication rate of this cohort was minimal, demonstrating an excellent safety profile for this technique.

This study still has some limitations. First, it is a cohort study with no comparison group. Second, the surgeon’s seniority may explain some of the positive outcomes. However, the mean study follow-up is sufficient to explain the approach’s safety and efficacy. Besides, independent and blinded attending surgeons performed follow-up appointments with data analysis, which reduced potential bias.

Efficacy

In our study, we achieved precise and highly reproducible implant orientations and minimal LLD. No revisions were documented for component malposition or LLD. MIS approaches have been linked to higher complication risks due to obstructed access [18]. In anterior or anterolateral approaches, accessing the acetabulum requires radiographic assistance and the challenging lifting of the proximal femur, which may lead to eccentric reaming, stem malposition, and fractures [18]. Using the STAR approach, surgical access to the acetabulum and femur is consistently unobstructed, regardless of patient anatomy, and special instrumentation, traction or fluoroscopy is not required [1]. We firmly believe that this is pivotal to attaining exemplary implant orientation during the implantation. Previous studies supported that PF preservation may hamper the superior acetabular part visualization [2]. The initial tendinous and distal muscular PF part release from the posterior capsule is critical to achieve highly reproducible acetabular access (Fig. 1). This sets the muscle free and allows the PF to move posteriorly and superiorly from the acetabular roof during reaming, following the anterior femoral placement with the retractor placed over the anterior acetabular wall. The PF mobilization can be challenging for dysplastic short-offset hips with long-standing arthritis, possibly due to the loss of muscle elasticity. This reduction in elasticity could cause intraoperative muscle overstretching and damage [19]. During femoral broaching, the PF tendon is typically located away from the intramedullary broaching entry point; the PF tendon attachment is usually found in the greater trochanter medial aspect, anterior and superior to the insertion of obturator internus and gemelli [20]. During femoral broaching, the PF tendon moves further away from the surgical field as the assistant surgeon exerts a longitudinal force on the leg.

thumbnail Figure 1

The figure demonstrates the unobstructed acetabular access during the STAR approach. Two self-retaining retractors and two blunt Hohmann retractors are used. The tip of the diathermy and the white arrow show the piriformis tendon.

Safety and complications

In our study, we documented limited complications, and the revision rate of our cohort was very low.

Neurovascular injuries and blood loss

No cases of sciatic nerve paresis or paralysis were recorded due to consistent identification of the sciatic nerve in all patients operated on with STAR and protection from both the capsule and SER flaps. A higher risk of nerve damage has been reported with other MIS approaches, particularly damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve through the direct anterior approach (DAA) [18]. No vascular injuries were recorded in our series. The STAR approach is well-distanced from major vascular structures. The vessels encountered during surgery are typically small MCFA branches found around the SERs’ tendons, easily identified and safely cauterized [21]. A recent Mayo Clinic cadaveric study demonstrated that DSA, a minimally invasive posterior approach that releases and reattaches the PF tendon, causes less soft tissue damage than DAA, thereby minimizing blood loss [22]. The limited perioperative blood loss and need for transfusion in our series can be mainly attributed to the avoidance of significant vascular structures, the soft-tissue preservation and the shorter incision [1].

Wound complications

A minimal wound complication rate was observed using the STAR technique. This may be attributed to the minimal approach invasiveness, the preservation of muscle structures such as piriformis, and the short surgical time [1]. The surgeon’s experience may also explain short duration and low complications. In addition, the STAR surgical incision is exposed to less tension than the greater trochanter may apply to the incisions of the lateral gluteal area, contributing to less stress on the incision edges and, subsequently, better wound healing [1]. During the STAR procedure, the skin incision is made at a distance from the perianal and groin regions, allowing a sterile environment that reduces the contamination risk [1].

Dislocations and fractures

No intraoperative or postoperative fractures occurred, with only one dislocation reported in our group. Recent meta-analysis data supports that posterior THA approaches have a similar risk of postoperative hip instability than anterior or lateral approaches [23]. Data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, containing over 175,000 primary THAs, reveals that the DSA approach, a mini posterior approach where PF is tenotomised and reattached to the greater trochanter via transosseous channels, poses an equal dislocation risk as DAA and a lower risk than the posterolateral approach [24]. The STAR approach is a posterior MIS approach that offers additional benefits over DSA due to PF retention [1]. Our case series had an extremely low dislocation and zero periprosthetic fracture incidence, which can be attributed to various factors. These include the surgeon’s experience, large femoral heads, the SER and posterior capsule tissue restoration, and the unobstructed acetabular and femoral access that allows optimal implant positioning without stretching the surrounding tissues.

Our initial experience precludes that the STAR approach is easy to perform and offers an excellent acetabular and proximal femoral view using no specialized tools or retractors. It can effectively be used in primary and complex dysplastic hip cases, regardless of implant type or fixation technique [1]. A previous study reported shorter hospital stays, lower transfusion rates, and earlier functional improvement than the DSA approach [1]. However, comparative studies with other standard approaches and the learning curve of the approach have not been evaluated. PF preservation has played a significant role in achieving these positive outcomes. Advancements in understanding the PF muscle role in hip joint stability have led to muscle-preserving hip techniques [1–9]. Recent literature on the posterior approach supported that PF preservation results in significantly less contiguity, atrophy, muscle grade and bulk deterioration, muscle fatty infiltration, and better early functional improvement than reattaching the PF muscle [25]. Several PM-preserving studies alone or with other SHERs [1–9] reported a limited dislocation rate and found short-term benefits in improved walk test, patient satisfaction, blood loss and pain control but similar long-term functional benefits compared to the standard approach [3, 4]. PF preservation for hip hemiarthroplasty may offer functional advantages and a favourable safety profile and has the potential to better maintain pre-injury mobility levels compared to the conventional lateral approach [5]. Table 4 summarises the most important findings of the PF-preserving hip arthroplasty cohort or comparative studies reported. These findings highlight the importance of PM and the necessity for additional research into muscle-preserving methods.

Table 4

PM-preserving cohort or comparative studies to standard approaches.

Conclusions

The STAR approach for primary and primary complex THA, retaining PF, is a safe and consistently efficient method that results in excellent early-to-mid-term outcomes. It provides unobstructed access to the acetabulum and proximal femur while preserving the PF and can be easily extended if necessary. The procedure uses standard instrumentation for all patients, implant designs and fixation techniques. Using the STAR approach, the surgeon can expect minimal blood loss, shorter hospital stays, excellent wound healing, and fewer skin complications. Besides retaining the PF, restoring the posterior soft tissue structures, and optimally placing the implants through this approach, along with using large femoral heads, provide a limited risk of hip instability and perioperative fractures.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to report.

Data availability statement

All research data is available upon request

Author contribution statement

E. Kenanidis (First author/Corresponding author): conceptualization, supervision, investigation and acquisition of data, formal analysis, interpretation of data, writing – original draft, review and editing.

V. Pegios: investigation and acquisition of data, formal analysis, methodology, writing original draft.

E. Tsamoura: investigation and acquisition of data, formal analysis, methodology, writing original draft.

N. Mylonakis: investigation and acquisition of data, formal analysis, methodology, writing original draft.

E. Tsiridis: conceptualization, supervision, methodology, interpretation of data, writing – review and editing.

Ethics approval

This study received ethical approval from the Academic Institutional Scientific Research Board under protocol number (31-05-24, No 196).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

References

  1. Kenanidis E, Milonakis N, Foukarakis G, Potoupnis M, Tsiridis E (2023) Superior Transverse Atraumatic Reconstruction (STAR) approach provides a better-compared outcome to standard Direct Superior Approach (DSA): a matched, prospective comparative single-surgeon study. SICOT J 9, 10. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Siddappa VH, Meftah M (2020) Piriformis-sparing technique in total hip arthroplasty with posterolateral approach. Surg Technol Int 36, 360–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Tan BKL, Khan RJK, Haebich SJ, Maor D, Blake EL, Breidahl WH (2019) Piriformis-sparing minimally invasive versus the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year follow-up of a randomized control trial. J Arthroplasty 34, 319–326. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Khan RJK, Maor D, Hofmann M, Haebich S (2012) A comparison of a less invasive piriformis-sparing approach versus the standard posterior approach to the hip: a randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94, 43–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Charity J, Ball S, Timperley AJ (2023) The use of a modified posterior approach (SPAIRE) may be associated with an increase in return to pre-injury level of mobility compared to a standard lateral approach in hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a single-centre study of the first 285 cases over a period of 3.5 years. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 49, 155–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Moussallem CD, Hoyek FA, Lahoud JCF (2012) Incidence of piriformis tendon preservation on the dislocation rate of total hip replacement following the posterior approach: a series of 226 cases. J Med Liban 60, 19–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang T, Zhou Y, Li X, Gao S, Yang Q (2021) Comparison of postoperative effectiveness of less invasive short external rotator sparing approach versus standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg Res 16, 46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Viberg B, Kristensen EQ, Gaarsdal T, Petersen CD, Jensen TG, Overgaard S, Palm H (2023) A piriformis-preserving posterior approach reduces dislocation rate of the hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fracture. Injury 23, S0020-1383(23)00382-0. [Google Scholar]
  9. Apinyankul R, Satravaha Y, Mokmongkolkul K, Phruetthiphat OA (2023) Comparison of dislocation and outcome between piriformis-sparing and conventional posterior approach after bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in patients over 60 years. J Arthroplasty 38, 732–736. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dorr LD (2016) Posterior mini-incision approach for total hip replacement. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 10(6), e5. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hanly JR, Sokolowski S, Timperley AJ (2017) The SPAIRE technique allows sparing of the piriformis and obturator internus in a modified posterior approach to the hip. Hip Int 27, 205–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ohyama Y, Iwakiri K, Ohta Y, Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Nakamura H (2023) Measurement of spinopelvic sagittal alignment in the relaxed seated position rather than in the straight seated position is suitable for assessing spinopelvic mobility in patients before total hip arthroplasty. SICOT J 9, 2. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tsiridis E, Kenanidis E, Potoupnis M, Sayegh F (2020) Direct superior approach with standard instrumentation for total hip arthroplasty: safety and efficacy in a prospective 200-case series. Hip Int 30, 552–558. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Widmer KH (2004) A simplified method to determine acetabular cup anteversion from plain radiographs. J Arthroplasty 19, 387–390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Khalily C, Lester DK (2002) Results of a tapered cementless femoral stem implanted in varus. J. Arthroplasty 17, 463–466. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Danoff JR, Bobman JT, Cunn G, Murtaugh T, Gorroochurn P, Geller JA, Macaulay W (2016) Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31, 506–511. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Meermans G, Malik A, Witt J, Haddad F (2011) Preoperative radiographic assessment of limb-length discrepancy in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469, 1677–1682. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Vasantharao P, Fenbury D, Khan R, Fick D, Dalgleish S, Finsterwald M, Castle H, Haebich S (2022) Anterior approach to hip replacement and associated complications: an independent review. Hip Int 32, 312–317. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Solomon LB, Lee YC, Callary SA, Beck M, Howie DW (2010) Anatomy of piriformis, obturator internus and obturator externus: implications for the posterior surgical approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92, 1317–1324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Roche JJ, Jones CD, Khan RJ, Yates PJ (2013) The surgical anatomy of the piriformis tendon, with particular reference to total hip replacement: a cadaver study. Bone Joint J 95-B, 764–769. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lazaro LE, Klinger CE, Sculco PK, Helfet DL, Lorich DG (2015) The terminal branches of the medial femoral circumflex artery: the arterial supply of the femoral head. Bone Joint J 97-B, 1204–1213. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Amanatullah DF, Masini MA, Roger DJ, Pagnano MW (2016) Greater inadvertent muscle damage in direct anterior approach when compared with the direct superior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-B(8), 1036–1042. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Koster M, Luzier AD, Temmerman OP, Vos SJ, Benner JL (2023) How do dislocation rates differ between different approaches to total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma Rehabil 30(1), 22104917221147688. [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Dooren B, Peters RM, Ettema HB, Schreurs BW, Van Steenbergen LN, Bolder SBT, Zijlstra WP (2023) Revision risk by using the direct superior approach (DSA) for total hip arthroplasty compared with postero-lateral approach: early nationwide results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Acta Orthop 94, 158–164. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Minokawa S, Naito M, Shiramizu K, Nakamura Y, Kinoshita K, Minamikawa T, Seo H, Yamamoto T (2018) Preservation technique of the piriformis tendon is superior to reattachment technique in terms of contiguity and muscle atrophy: using magnetic resonance imaging. Hip Int 28, 599–605. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Kenanidis E, Pegios VF, Tsamoura E, Milonakis N & Tsiridis E (2024) Piriformis preserving posterior approach STAR for primary and primary complex total hip arthroplasty: Excellent safety and efficacy in a single blinded prospective single surgeon cohort of 522 patients with a mean follow-up of 2 years. SICOT-J 10, 33

All Tables

Table 1

The demographics and clinical data of the patients.

In the text
Table 2

Operative and postoperative radiological data of the patients.

In the text
Table 3

Implant type, size and other characteristics.

In the text
Table 4

PM-preserving cohort or comparative studies to standard approaches.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

The figure demonstrates the unobstructed acetabular access during the STAR approach. Two self-retaining retractors and two blunt Hohmann retractors are used. The tip of the diathermy and the white arrow show the piriformis tendon.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.