Management of femoral neck fractures with the ALMIS approach in elderly patients: Outcomes compared to posterior approach

Abstract

IntroductionOver the last 2 decades, several minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches have been introduced for hip arthroplasty, including anterolateral minimally invasive surgery (ALMIS) introduced by Röttinger in 2004. As described, this muscle sparing approach promises faster recovery and lower dislocation rates. Although there has been a peaked recent interest in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) hip arthroplasty, few studies support the superiority of ALMIS compared to the more traditional posterior approach. The present study examines the safety and early complications of elderly patients undergoing ALMIS compared to a posterior approach for hemiarthroplasty of displaced femoral neck fractures. MethodsIn a retrograde level III case-control study, 100 consecutive elderly patients with primary hip arthroplasty were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of 50 consecutive cases operated with the ALMIS approach and the second group of 50 consecutive cases operated through a posterior approach. Operative time, postoperative complication rates, length of hospitalization, blood loss, and leg-length discrepancy, were reviewed retrospectively. ResultsNo differences were observed in post-operative complications. Overall, the operative time was significantly greater in the ALMIS group compared to the posterior approach group (75 ± 12 vs 67.5 ± 16 min, respectively; p ≤ 0.01). However, the operating time of the second half of the ALMIS cohort (N = 25), did not differ from the posterior approach group (72.7 ± 10.5 vs 67.5 ± 16, respectively; p = 0.19). Leg length discrepancy was significantly less in the ALMIS group compared to the posterior exposure group (1.5 ± 3.2 vs 3.2 ± 3.3, respectively; P≤0.1). ConclusionsThe results of the retrograde analysis, although limited in sample size, shows no major differences in ALMIS compared to a more traditional posterior approach in terms of immediate post-operative complications. Although the overall operating time was longer in the patients treated with ALMIS, the second cohort of patients treated with this method had an operating time that was similar to that observed with posterior approach. Leg-length discrepancies were significantly less in patients treated with ALMIS.