Debate continues around the most effective surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study’s purpose was to compare 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patients who underwent direct anterior (DA), transgluteal anterolateral (AL)/direct lateral (DL), and posterolateral (PL) approaches.
Methods:
A prospective consecutive series of primary THA for osteoarthritis (n = 2390) were performed at 5 sites within a single institution with standardised care pathways (20 surgeons). Patients were categorised by approach: DA (n = 913; 38%), AL/DL (n = 505; 21%), or PL (n = 972; 41%). Primary outcomes were pain, function, and activity assessed by 1-year postoperative PROMs. Multivariable regression modeling was used to control for differences among the groups. Wald tests were performed to test the significance of select patient factors and simultaneous 95% confidence intervals were constructed.
Results:
At 1-year postoperative, PROMs were successfully collected from 1842 (77.1%) patients. Approach was a statistically significant factor for 1-year HOOS pain (p = 0.002). Approach was not a significant factor for 1-year HOOS-PS (p = 0.16) or 1-year UCLA activity (p = 0.382). Pairwise comparisons showed no significant difference in 1-year HOOS pain scores between DA and PL approach (p> 0.05). AL/DL approach had lower (worse) pain scores than DA or PL approaches with differences in adjusted median score of 3.47 and 2.43, respectively (p< 0.05).
Conclusions:
Patients receiving the AL/DL approach had a small statistical difference in pain scores at 1 year, but no clinically meaningful differences in pain, activity, or function exist at 1-year postoperative.
KurtzSOngKLauE, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 780–785.
2.
DaigleMEWeinsteinAMKatzJN, et al. The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2012; 26: 649–658.
3.
LaupacisABourneRRorabeckC, et al. The effect of elective hip replacement of life on health-related quality. J Bone Joint Surg Am1993; 75: 1619–1626.
4.
LarsenKHansenTBThomsenPB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 761–772.
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. 9): 5–13.
6.
ShethDCafriGInacioMC, et al. Anterior and anterolateral approaches for THA are associated with lower dislocation risk without higher revision risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 3401–3408.
7.
BarrettWPTurnerSELeopoldJP.Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1634–1638.
8.
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. 9): 94–97.
9.
GoebelSSteinertAFSchillingerJ, et al. Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop2012; 36: 491–498.
10.
MjaalandKEKivleKSvenningsenS, et al. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res2015; 33: 1305–1310.
11.
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.
12.
Robertson-WatersEBerstockJRWhitehouseMR, et al. Surgery for greater trochanteric pain syndrome after total hip replacement confers a poor outcome. Int Orthop2018; 42: 77–85.
13.
AggarwalVKElbulukADundonJ, et al. Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2019; 101–B: 646–651
14.
LowryKJBroxWTNaasPL, et al. Musculoskeletal-based patient-reported outcome performance measures, where have we been-where are we going. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2018; 27: 1.
15.
HigginsBTBarlowDRHeagertyNE, et al. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 419–434.
16.
WangZBaoHWHouJZ.Direct anterior versus lateral approaches for clinical outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res2019; 14: 63.
17.
FeatherallJBrigatiDPFaourM, et al. Implementation of a total hip arthroplasty care pathway at a high-volume health system: effect on length of stay, discharge disposition, and 90-Day complications. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1675–1680.
18.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeR, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2009; 42: 377–381.
19.
OME Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedics. Implementing a scientifically valid, cost-effective, and scalable data collection system at point of care: the Cleveland clinic OME cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 458–464.
20.
CurtisGLTariqMBBrigatiDP, et al. Validation of a novel surgical data capturing system following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3479–3483.
21.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg2014; 12: 1495–1499.
22.
KlässboMLarssonEMannevikE.Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index. Scand J Rheumatol2003; 32: 46–51.
23.
AmstutzHCThomasBJJinnahR, et al. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1984; 66: 228–241.
24.
SelimAJRogersWFleishmanJA, et al. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res2009; 18: 43–52.
25.
DavisAMPerruccioAVCanizaresM, et al. The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-physical function shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2008; 16: 551–559.
26.
MillerLEGonduskyJSBhattacharyyaS, et al. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hip arthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1296–1302.
27.
MillerLEMartinsonMSGonduskyJS, et al. Ninety-day postoperative cost in primary total hip arthroplasty: an economic model comparing surgical approaches. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res2019; 11: 145–149.
28.
LymanSLeeYYMcLawhornAS, et al. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement?Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 2432–2441.
29.
HungMBounsangaJVossMW, et al. Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World J Orthop2018; 9: 41–49.
30.
ConnollyKPKamathAF.Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: comparative outcomes and contemporary results. World J Orthop2016; 7: 94.
31.
TauntonMJTrousdaleRTSierraRJ, et al. John Charnley award: randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: which provides better functional recovery?Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 216–229.
32.
GravesSCDropkinBMKeeneyBJ, et al. Does surgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA?Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 971–981.
33.
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.
34.
RamkumarPNNavarroSMHaeberleHS, et al. No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 2322–2329.
