Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 2771–2775 | Cite as

Patient’s perspective on direct anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty

  • Dragan Radoicic
  • Vladimir Zec
  • Walaa Ikram Elassuity
  • Mostafa Abdelmaboud Azab
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty approach comparison focused on patient’s perspective. The direct anterior approach (DAA) has gained immense popularity in the last decade and is widely advocated as a superior approach in terms of quicker recovery and better overall outcome. However, the question if the level of DAA promotion is justified seems to be rarely posed.

Methods

A single-surgeon consecutive series of patients who underwent bilateral THA, one in DAA and the other in posterior approach (PA). The same implant design and same component sizes were used for the both sides. All the operations were performed by a single surgeon under the same pre- and post-operative care protocol.

Results

Twenty-one patients underwent bilateral THA, mean age 60.09 years. Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was used for functional outcome assessment. There were no statistically significant differences between two approaches in terms of functional outcome (mean OHS for DAA series was 42.95 and that for the PA was 43.38, p 0.07 at an alpha level of 0.05). Fifteen patients gave the advantage to PA, and six patients favoured DAA.

Conclusion

By study design, we tried to reduce the biases and acquire approach appraisal from patient’s perspective. We anticipated the outcome in favour of DAA, but the results favoring PA came as a surprise. Future prospective randomized studies on evaluation of DAA and other approaches not only from surgeon’s or industry’s point of view, performed on a larger and more uniform groups, are warranted to further explore the subjective differences between DAA and PA.

Keywords

Direct anterior approach Patient’s perspective Total hip arthroplasty approach 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to starting this research.

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW (2015) Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):623–631Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwartz BE, Sisko ZW, Mayekar EM, Wang OJ, Gordon AC (2016) Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: is it safe in the current health care climate? J Arthroplast 31(12):2819–2824Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A (2017) 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 41:2245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8
  4. 4.
    Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C, Hozack WJ, Ong A (2014) Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(9):595–603Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad FS (2017) The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 99(6):732–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Clark CR (2013) A comparison of hospital length of stay and short-term morbidity between the anterior and the posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28(5):849–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bender B, Nogler M, Hozack WJ (2009a) Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 40(3):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bozic KJ, Lau E, Kurtz S, Ong K, Rubash H, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2012) Patient-related risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection and postoperative mortality following total hip arthroplasty in Medicare patients. JBJS 94(9):794–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA (2014) Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29(9):1839–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayr E, Nogler M, Benedetti MG, Kessler O, Reinthaler A, Krismer M, Leardini A (2009) A prospective randomized assessment of earlier functional recovery in THA patients treated by minimally invasive direct anterior approach: a gait analysis study. Clin Biomech 24(10):812–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maffiuletti NA, Impellizzeri FM, Widler K, Bizzini M, Kain MS, Munzinger U, Leunig M (2009) Spatiotemporal parameters of gait after total hip replacement: anterior versus posterior approach. Orthop Clin N Am 40(3):407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA (2016) No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop 40(10):2025–2030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bozic KJ, Ong K, Lau E, Berry DJ, Vail TP, Kurtz SM, Rubash HE (2013) Estimating risk in Medicare patients with THA: an electronic risk calculator for periprosthetic joint infection and mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(2):574–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shofoluwe AI, Naveen NB, Inabathula A, Ziemba-Davis M, Meneghini RM, Callaghan JJ, Warth LC (2018) Internet promotion of direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty by members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplast 33(1):167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dawson J (2014) Oxford hip score, encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, Netherlands, pp 4552–4553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Field RE, Cronin MD, Singh PJ (2005) The Oxford Hip Scores for primary and revision hip replacement. Bone Joint Journal 87(5):618–622Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matta JM, Shahrdar C, Ferguson T (2005) Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:115–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zawadsky MW, Paulus MC, Murray PJ, Johansen MA (2014) Early outcome comparison between the direct anterior approach and the mini-incision posterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: 150 consecutive cases. J Arthroplast 29(6):1256–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB (2011) Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop 35(2):173–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP (2013a) Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28(9):1634–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graves SC, Dropkin BM, Keeney BJ, Lurie JD, Tomek IM (2016) Does surgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(4):971–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seng BE, Berend KR, Ajluni AF, Lombardi AV (2009) Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin N Am 40(3):343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jewett BA, Collis DK (2011) High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):503–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nilsdotter A, Bremander A (2011) Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res 63(S11)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu KJ (2005) Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties—a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplast 20(8):1037–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology ClinicMilitary Medical AcademyBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Exeter Bone&JointAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Exeter Bone&JointDubaiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations