Objective and subjective outcomes in the direct anterior approach (DAA) and posterior approach (PA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) were assessed in this study, using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) as primary outcome. Pain, 3 objective performance-based tests, surgical time, blood loss and length of stay were assessed as secondary outcomes.
Methods:
Patients with primary end-stage osteoarthritis were prospectively enrolled by shared decision making for the DAA (32 patients) or PA (26 patients). Baseline data were collected preoperatively and outcomes postoperatively at 2-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-up.
Results:
There is no significant difference (p < 0.05) between the DAA and PA on primary outcome (OHS). There was a main effect of time which indicated an increase of OHS over time independent of group (p < 0.01).
Conclusions:
In the current study, no significant differences in postoperative functional outcome were found between DAA and PA in all follow-up moments.
HesselingBMathijssenNMCvan SteenbergenLN, et al. Fast starters, slow starters, and late dippers: trajectories of patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: results from a Dutch nationwide database. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 2175–2186.
2.
PăunescuFDidilescuAAntonescuDM.Factors that may influence the functional outcome after primary total hip arthroplasty. Clujul Med2013; 86:121–127.
3.
AnakweREJenkinsPJMoranM.Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty2011; 26: 209–213.
4.
NilsdotterAKPeterssonIFRoosEM, et al. Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis2003; 62: 923–930.
5.
OkaforLChenAF.Patient satisfaction and total hip arthroplasty: a review. Arthroplasty2019; 1: 6.
6.
BarrettWPTurnerSELeopoldJP.Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1634–1638.
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.
9.
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.
10.
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.
11.
HigginsBTBarlowDRHeagertyNE, et al. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 419–434.
12.
MartusiewiczADelagrammaticasDHaroldRE, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: patient-reported and functional outcomes in the early postoperative period. Hip Int2020; 30: 695–702.
13.
PetisSHowardJLLantingBL, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg2015; 58: 128–139.
14.
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.
15.
ZhangZWangCYangP, et al. “Comparison of early rehabilitation effects of total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach versus posterior approach”. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi2018; 32: 329–333.
16.
DobsonFHinmanRSRoosEM, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2013; 21: 1042–1052.
17.
GandhiRTsvetkovDDaveyJR, et al. Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol2009; 28: 253–257.
18.
DaytonMRJuddDLHoganCA, et al. Performance-based versus self-reported outcomes using the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2016; 95: 132–138.
19.
PetersRMTen HaveBLEFRykovK, et al. The learning curve of the direct anterior approach is 100 cases: an analysis based on 15,875 total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop2022; 93: 775–782.
20.
GosensTHoefnagelsNHde VetRC, et al. The “Oxford Heup Score”: the translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2005; 76: 204–211.
21.
DelgadoDALambertBSBoutrisN, et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev2018; 2: e088.
22.
UnverBKahramanTKalkanS, et al. Test-retest reliability of the stair test in patients with total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2015; 25: 160–163.
23.
TolkJJJanssenRPAPrinsenC, et al. Measurement properties of the OARSI core set of performance-based measures for hip osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study on reliability, construct validity and responsiveness in 90 hip osteo-arthritis patients. Acta Orthop2019; 90: 15–20.
24.
YagerMStichlerJ.The effect of early ambulation on patient outcomes for total joint replacement. Orthop Nurs2015; 34: 197–200; quiz 201–202.
25.
ArnauJBonoRBlancaMJ, et al. Using the linear mixed model to analyze nonnormal data distributions in longitudinal designs. Behav Res Methods2012; 44: 1224–1238.
26.
ZhouZZhaoJBissonLJ.Estimation of data adaptive minimal clinically important difference with a nonconvex optimization procedure. Stat Methods Med Res2020; 29: 879–893.
27.
MurrayDWFitzpatrickRRogersK, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 1010–1014.
28.
DammPZonneveldJBrackertzS, et al. Gluteal muscle damage leads to higher in vivo hip joint loads 3 months after total hip arthroplasty. PLoS One2018; 13: e0190626.
29.
DistefanoLJBlackburnJTMarshallSW, et al. Gluteal muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2009; 39: 532–540.
30.
HolmBThorborgKHustedH, et al. Surgery-induced changes and early recovery of hip-muscle strength, leg-press power, and functional performance after fast-track total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One2013; 8: e62109.
31.
PopovicTSamaanMALinkTM, et al. Patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis have altered kinematics during stair ambulation. PM R2021; 13: 128–136.
32.
FukumotoYOhataKTsukagoshiR, et al. Changes in hip and knee muscle strength in patients following total hip arthroplasty. J Jpn Phys Ther Assoc2013; 16: 22–27.
33.
YanLGeLDongS, et al. Evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety of surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open2023; 6: e2253942.
34.
AngJJMOnggoJRStokesCM, et al. Comparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2023; 33: 2773–2292.
35.
DriesmanAYangCC.Clinical outcomes of DAA and related techniques in hip arthroplasty. Arthroplasty2023; 5: 42.
36.
RealyvasquezJSinghVShahAK, et al. The direct anterior approach to the hip: a useful tool in experienced hands or just another approach?Arthroplasty2022; 4: 1.
37.
HackettNJDe OliveiraGSJainUK, et al. ASA class is a reliable independent predictor of medical complications and mortality following surgery. Int J Surg2015; 18: 184–190.
