Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-5
The risk of hospital readmission,revision,and intra- and postoperative complications between direct anterior versus posterior approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty: a stratified meta-analysis and a probability based cost projection
This study presents stratified meta-analysis and projected cost per case analysis of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus posterior approach (PA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to determine the best surgical approach and guarantee hip joint longevity.
Methods:
Several online databases were searched for clinical trials comparing DAA and PA in primary THA. The stratified analysis was conducted to test for confounding and biases across the different types of included trials. The average cost and probability were used to determine projected added costs of medical and surgical management for complications.
Results:
30 clinical trials included 11,562 patients who underwent THA. Almost 50% of these patients performed DAA. As compared to PA, both non-stratified and stratified analyses demonstrated that DAA has a significant higher incidence of the overall intra- and postoperative complications (non-stratified, OR 1.64; p = 0.003) (stratified, OR 4.12; p = 0.005), nerve injury (non-stratified, OR 22.0; p< 0.00001) (stratified, OR 0.28; p < 0.00001), higher rate of revision surgery (non-stratified; OR 1.54; p = 0.01) (stratified, OR 7.37; p = 0.006), and higher incidence of surgical wound complications (non-stratified; OR 1.67; p = 0.002) as compared to PA following primary THA. In addition, DAA demonstrated higher trends of incidence (non-statistically significant) of femur fracture (Non-stratified, OR 1.32, p = 0.10) and thrombo-embolic complications (Retrospective studies, OR 1.39, p = 0.69). However, PA demonstrated higher trends of incidence (non-statistically significant) of hip joint dislocation, as compared to DAA. (Stratified RCTs, OR 0.63, p = 0.65]. Collectively, this amounts a $421,068.68 surplus in DAA complication costs.
Conclusions:
PA may provide a more lucrative, safer approach to those undergoing THA given its comparable postoperative outcomes, reduced complication rates, and lower overall cost relative to DAA.
McDermottKWFreemanWJElixhauserA. Overview of operating room procedures during inpatient stays in U.S. hospitals, 2014: statistical brief #233. In: Healthcare cost and utilization project (HCUP) statistical briefs, 2006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).
SinghJAYuSChenL, et al. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol2019; 46: 1134–1140.
4.
SloanMPremkumarAShethNP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 1455–1460.
5.
WaddellJJohnsonKHeinW, et al. Orthopaedic practice in total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: results from the Global Orthopaedic Registry (GLORY). Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2010; 39(Suppl.): 5–13.
6.
SiguierTSiguierMBrumptB. Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 426: 164–173.
7.
ChristensenCPJacobsCA. Comparison of patient function during the first six weeks after direct anterior or posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA): a randomized study. J Arthroplasty2015; 30(Suppl.): 94–97.
8.
GoebelSSteinertAFSchillingerJ, et al. Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop2012; 36: 491–498.
9.
RestrepoCParviziJPourAE, et al. Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 671–679.e1.
10.
RodriguezJADeshmukhAJRathodPA, et al. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach?Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 455–463.
11.
HowellJRGarbuzDSDuncanCP. Minimally invasive hip replacement: rationale, applied anatomy, and instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am2004; 35: 107–118.
12.
OinumaKEingartnerCSaitoY, et al. Total hip arthroplasty by a minimally invasive, direct anterior approach. Oper Orthop Traumatol2007; 19: 310–326.
13.
WattsCDHoudekMTWagnerER, et al. High risk of wound complications following direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in obese patients. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 2296–2298.
14.
De GeestTFennemaPLenaertsG, et al. Adverse effects associated with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2015; 135: 1183–1192.
15.
AwadMEFarleyBJMostafaG, et al. Direct anterior approach has short-term functional benefit and higher resource requirements compared with the posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of functional outcomes and cost. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 1078–1087.
16.
ChengTEWallisJATaylorNF, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty – comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 883–890.
17.
D’ArrigoCSperanzaAMonacoE, et al. Learning curve in tissue sparing total hip replacement: comparison between different approaches. J Orthop Traumatol2009; 10: 47–54.
18.
SpaansAJvan den HoutJABolderSB. High complication rate in the early experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach. Acta Orthop2012; 83: 342–346.
19.
WoolsonSTPouliotMAHuddlestonJI. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an anterior approach and a fracture table: short-term results from a community hospital. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 999–1005.
20.
PagnanoMWLeoneJLewallenDG, et al. Two-incision THA had modest outcomes and some substantial complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 441: 86–90.
21.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009; 339: b2700.
22.
HigginsJPThomasJChandlerJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0, www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (2019, accessed 30 March 2020).
23.
BerginPFDoppeltJDKephartCJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93: 1392–1398.
24.
Poehling-MonaghanKLTauntonMJKamathAF, et al. No correlation between serum markers and early functional outcome after contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475: 452–462.
25.
TauntonMJMasonJBOdumSM, et al. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty2014; 29(Suppl.): 169–172.
26.
ZawadskyMWPaulusMCMurrayPJ, et al. Early outcome comparison between the direct anterior approach and the mini-incision posterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: 150 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1256–1260.
27.
HananouchiTTakaoMNishiiT, et al. Comparison of navigation accuracy in THA between the mini-anterior and -posterior approaches. Int J Med2009; 5: 20–25.
28.
NakataKNishikawaMYamamotoK, et al. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 698–704.
BarrettWPTurnerSELeopoldJP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1634–1638.
31.
BarrettWPTurnerSEMurphyJA, et al. Prospective, randomized study of direct anterior approach vs posterolateral approach total hip arthroplasty: a concise 5-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 1139–1142.
32.
ZhaoHYKangPDXiaYY, et al. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3421–3428.
33.
EngdalMFossOATaraldsenK, et al. Daily physical activity in total hip arthroplasty patients undergoing different surgical approaches: a cohort study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2017; 96: 473–478.
34.
MartinCTPugelyAJGaoY, et al. A comparison of hospital length of stay and short-term morbidity between the anterior and the posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 849–854.
35.
PetisSMHowardJLLantingBA, et al. In-hospital cost analysis of total hip arthroplasty: does surgical approach matter?J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 53–58.
36.
BalasubramaniamUDowseyMMaF, et al. Functional and clinical outcomes following anterior hip replacement: a 5-year comparative study versus posterior approach. ANZ J Surg2016; 86: 589–593.
37.
MaldonadoDRKyinCWalker-SantiagoR, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip replacement: comparison of minimum 2-year outcomes. Hip Int2021; 31: 166–173.
38.
MalekIARoyceGBhattiSU, et al. A comparison between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty: the role of an ‘Enhanced Recovery’ pathway. Bone Joint J2016; 98-B: 754–760.
39.
MarattJDGagnierJJButlerPD, et al. No difference in dislocation seen in anterior vs posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2016; 31(Suppl.): 127–130.
40.
NamDSculcoPKAbdelMP, et al. Leg-length inequalities following THA based on surgical technique. Orthopedics2013; 36: e395–400.
41.
RathodPAOrishimoKFKremenicIJ, et al. Similar improvement in gait parameters following direct anterior & posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1261–1264.
42.
TripuraneniKRMunsonNRArchibeckMJ, et al. Acetabular abduction and dislocations in direct anterior vs posterior total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective, matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2299–2302.
43.
El BitarYFStoneJCJacksonTJ, et al. Leg-length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of robot-assisted posterior, fluoroscopy-guided anterior, and conventional posterior approaches. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2015; 44: 265–269.
44.
HamiltonWGParksNLHuynhC. Comparison of cup alignment, jump distance, and complications in consecutive series of anterior approach and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1959–1962.
45.
SchweppeMLSeylerTMPlateJF, et al. Does surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty affect rehabilitation, discharge disposition, and readmission rate?Surg Technol Int2013; 23: 219–227.
46.
NamDSculcoPKSuEP, et al. Acetabular component positioning in primary THA via an anterior, posterolateral, or posterolateral-navigated surgical technique. Orthopedics2013; 36: e1482–e1487.
47.
ReiningaIHStevensMWagenmakersR, et al. Comparison of gait in patients following a computer-navigated minimally invasive anterior approach and a conventional posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Res2013; 31: 288–294.
48.
RykovKReiningaIHSietsmaMS, et al. Posterolateral vs direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty (POLADA Trial): a randomized controlled trial to assess differences in serum markers. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3652–3658.e1.
49.
BonGKacemEBLepretrePM, et al. Does the direct anterior approach allow earlier recovery of walking following total hip arthroplasty? A randomized prospective trial using accelerometry. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2019; 105: 445–452.
50.
MoerenhoutKDeromePLaflammeGY, et al. Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg2020; 63: E412–E417.
51.
JosephNMRobertsJMulliganMT. Financial impact of total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of anterior versus posterior surgical approaches. Arthroplast Today2017; 3: 39–43.
52.
AggarwalVKElbulukADundonJ, et al. Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2019; 101-B: 646–651.
53.
ShieldsEBehrendCBairJ, et al. Mortality and financial burden of periprosthetic fractures of the femur. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil2014; 5: 147–153.
54.
NhereraLMTruemanPHornerA, et al. Comparing the costs and outcomes of an integrated twin compression screw (ITCS) nail with standard of care using a single lag screw or a single helical blade cephalomedullary nail in patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Orthop Surg Res2018; 13: 217.
55.
BozicKJKamathAFOngK, et al. Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed tha poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 2131–2138.
56.
GwamCUMistryJBMohamedNS, et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2088–2092.
57.
KloucheSSarialiEMamoudyP. Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2010; 96: 124–132.
58.
O’BrienJACaroJJ. Direct medical cost of managing deep vein thrombosis according to the occurrence of complications. Pharmacoeconomics2002; 20: 603–615.
59.
GrosseSDNelsonRENyarkoKA, et al. The economic burden of incident venous thromboembolism in the United States: a review of estimated attributable healthcare costs. Thromb Res2016; 137: 3–10.
60.
MurphyWLanePLinB, et al. Readmission rates, causes, and costs following total joint arthroplasty in US Medicare population. Orthop Proc2019; 101-B(Suppl. 4): 142.
61.
MeneghiniRMElstonASChenAF, et al. Direct anterior approach: risk factor for early femoral failure of cementless total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 99–105.
62.
WangZHouJZWuCH, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res2018; 13: 229.
63.
JiaFGuoBXuF, et al. A comparison of clinical, radiographic and surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior and posterior approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int2019; 29: 584–596.
64.
MattaJMShahrdarCFergusonT. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 441: 115–124.
65.
JewettBACollisDK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 503–507.
66.
SengBEBerendKRAjluniAF, et al. Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin North Am2009; 40: 343–350.
67.
ChristensenCPKarthikeyanTJacobsCA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1839–1841.
68.
de SteigerRNLorimerMSolomonM. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 3860–3866.
69.
NairnLGyemiLGouveiaK, et al. The learning curve for the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop2021; 45: 1971–1982.
70.
CarrollKDowseyMChoongP, et al. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect2014; 20: 130–135.
71.
PatelVPWalshMSehgalB, et al. Factors associated with prolonged wound drainage after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 33–38.
72.
PugelyAJMartinCTGaoY, et al. The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30(Suppl.): 47–50.
73.
InacioMCPrattNLRougheadEE, et al. Opioid use after total hip arthroplasty surgery is associated with revision surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2016; 17: 122–122.
MorrisonAPolisenaJHusereauD, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2012; 28: 138–144.
76.
PhamBKlassenTPLawsonML, et al. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol2005; 58: 769–776.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
