Early femoral component migration: comparing the anterior and posterior approach to the hip

Abstract

Purpose:

Early femoral component migration is a useful indicator for identifying implants at risk of failure due to aseptic loosening. The goal of this retrospective study was to identify if anterior approach (AA) treated hips are at a higher risk of failure due to aseptic loosening caused by early migration compared to hips operated on using the traditional posterior approach (PA).

Methods:

A total of 388 hips were included in this study, 139 AA and 249 PA treated hips. Femoral component migration was evaluated using EBRA-FCA and radiographs were assessed for radiolucency at latest follow-up. Preoperative and 2-year clinical outcomes were reported.

Results:

The 1- and 2-year migration rates (mm/year), and total migration (mm) at 2-year follow-up were comparable between AA and PA hips, respectively: 0.52 versus 0.41, 0.18 versus 0.19, and 0.64 versus 0.63 (all p > 0.05). Though not statistically significant, a higher percentage of AA hips passed 2-year total migration thresholds that have been associated with aseptic loosening compared to PA hips: 25.4% versus 16.5% for 1.5 mm threshold, and 11.3% versus 4.1% for the 2.7 mm threshold. Migration was not associated with the presence of radiolucent lines. All clinical outcomes improved significantly between preoperative and 2-year follow-up.

Conclusions:

There was no association between the AA and any significant increase in femoral component migration. A higher percentage of AA hips exceeded the migration thresholds associated aseptic loosening; however, these stems had no other indications of instability and therefore suggests that this may be a difference in migration pattern.

Keywords

Anterior approach EBRA-FCA femoral component migration total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Stambough

Beaulé

Nunley

, et al. Contemporary strategies for rapid recovery total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2016; 65: 211–224.

Moskal

Capps

Scanelli

JA.

Anterior muscle sparing approach for total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop 2013; 4: 12–18.

Nakata

Nishikawa

Yamamoto

, et al. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 698–704.

Restrepo

Parvizi

Pour

, et al. Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 671–679.

Watts

Houdek

Wagner

, et al. High risk of wound complications following direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in obese patients. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 2296–2298.

Russo

Macdonell

Paulus

, et al. Increased complications in obese patients undergoing direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1384–1387.

Purcell

Parks

Gargiulo

, et al. Severely obese patients have a higher risk of infection following direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 162–165.

Rivera

Leonardi

Evangelista

, et al. Risk of stem undersizing with direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2016; 26: 249–253.

Meneghini

Elston

Chen

, et al. Direct anterior approach: risk factor for early femoral failure of cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 99–105.

10.

Eto

Hwang

Huddleston

, et al. The direct anterior approach is associated with early revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1001–1005.

11.

Jewett

Collis

DK.

High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; (469): 503–507.

12.

De Steiger

Lorimer

Solomon

What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3860–3866.

13.

Pogliacomi

Paraskevopoulos

Costantino

, et al. Influence of surgical experience in the learning curve of a new approach in hip replacement: anterior mini-invasive vs. standard lateral. Hip Int 2012; 22: 555–561.

14.

Berend

Mirza

Morris

, et al. Risk of periprosthetic fractures with direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 2295–2298.

15.

Streit

Haeussler

Bruckner

, et al. Early migration predicts aseptic loosening of cementless femoral stems: a long-term study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 1–10.

16.

Biedermann

Krismer

Stöckl

, et al. Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 266–272.

17.

Krismer

Biedermann

Stöckl

, et al. The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 273–280.

18.

White

Carsen

Rasuli

, et al. High incidence of migration with poor initial fixation of the Accolade stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 410–417.

19.

Kroell

Beaulé

Krismer

Aseptic stem loosening in primary THA: migration analysis of cemented and cementless fixation. Int Orthop 2009; 33: 1501–1505.

20.

Matta

Shahrdar

Ferguson

Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 115–124.

21.

Nobel

Alexander

Lindahl

, et al. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (235): 148–165.

22.

Dorr

Faugere

Mackel

, et al. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 1993; 14: 231–242.

23.

Gruen

McNeice

Amstutz

HC.

“Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978: (141): 17–27.

24.

Gofton

Papp

Gofton

, et al. Understanding and taking control of surgical learning curves. Instr Course Lect 2016; 65: 623–631.

25.

Taunton

Mason

Odum

, et al. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 169–172.

26.

Schmidutz

Graf

Mazoochian

, et al. Migration analysis of a metaphyseal anchored short-stem hip prosthesis EBRA-FCA evaluation of 80 implants with a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 360–365.