Advertisement

Bikini versus traditional incision direct anterior approach: is there any difference in soft tissue damage?

Bikini versus traditional incision direct anterior approach: is there any difference in soft tissue damage?

Post author correction

Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Article Subject: Hip replacement

DOI:10.5301/hipint.5000478

Authors

Brent A. Lanting, Kirk C. Hartley, Adam J. Raffoul, Timothy A. Burkhart, Lyndsay Sommerville, Glynn R. Martin, James L. Howard, Marjorie Johnson

Abstract

Introduction

The direct anterior approach for total hip replacements has reported advantages of improved early function and muscle preservation. In an effort to improve healing and cosmesis, a change in the orientation of the incision has been proposed. Traditionally, the skin incision is in-line with the tensor fasciae latae muscle belly. The bikini incision is orthogonal to this orientation. The hypothesis was that muscle damage would be increased by using the bikini incision.

Methods

A traditional or bikini incision was performed on 18 cadaveric hips. On each of the 9 specimens, the traditional incision was performed on 1 side, and a bikini incision on the contralateral hip, with an even distribution of right or left side. Blinded anatomists performed the hip dissections, and assessed for muscle damage as well as for damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve.

Results

No difference in muscle damage was identified in the tensor fasciae latae between muscle groups. Muscle damage was very minimal to the gluteus medius and minimus. Damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve occurred equally for both the bikini and traditional skin incisions.

Conclusions

The bikini incision for the direct anterior approach to the hip can be performed safely, with no increase in muscle damage or damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve compared to the traditional incision.

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: This study was funded by an investigator initiated grant from Zimmer as well as partial support from the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR).
Conflict of interest: Institutional support from Smith and Nephew, Stryker, DePuy and Zimmer.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

Affiliations

  • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital London, Ontario - Canada
  • Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Western University, Ontario - Canada
  • Department of Surgery, Western University, Ontario - Canada
  • Orthopaedic Surgery, Grand River Sports Medicine, Ontario - Canada

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.