To compare functional outcomes and complications between posterior approach (PA), direct anterior approach (DAA), and direct superior approach (DSA) in hip surgery.
Methods:
PRISMA guidelines and PICOS framework were followed. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 to calculate odds ratios, mean differences, and standard mean differences with 95% CIs.
Results:
Analysis included 13 studies (972 patients). PA demonstrated significantly shorter surgery time (MD -11.92; 95% CI, -18.48–-5.36). No significant differences were found in dislocation (OR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.31–3.07), periprosthetic fracture (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.36–4.03), deep vein thrombosis (OR 3.06; 95% CI, 0.47–19.76), infection (OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.16–2.39), or reoperation rates (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.20–2.28). Hip function at 2–4 weeks favoured DSA over DAA (MD -4.39; 95% CI, -5.60–-3.19), but showed no significant differences at 12 months (SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.31–0.12). Pain showed no significant differences at either 2–4 weeks (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.96–1.16) or 12 months (MD 0.07; 95% CI, -0.05–0.18).
Conclusions:
PA showed shorter surgery time, and DSA demonstrated better short-term functional results. No significant differences in complications, pain, or long-term functional results were found between approaches.
LombardiAVJrNunleyRMBerendKR, et al. Do patients return to work after total knee arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 138–146.
2.
BergerRAJacobsJJMeneghiniRM, et al. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 429: 239–247.
3.
MoreauP.Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using Hueter’s direct anterior approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2018; 28: 771–779.
4.
LuZChenQLanY, et al. Subtrochanteric osteotomy in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty for Crowe IV dysplasia-surgical technique and literature review. Orthop Surg2024; 16: 766–774.
5.
ChowJ.SuperPath: the direct superior portal-assisted total hip approach. JBJS Essent Surg Tech2017; 7: e23.
6.
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: 94–97.
7.
DorrLDMaheshwariA VLongWT, et al. Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 1153–1160.
8.
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.
GulbrandsenTRMufflySAShamrockA, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in the first year of practice. Iowa Orthop J2022; 42: 127–136.
11.
MoerenhoutKDeromePLaflammeGY, et al. Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg2020; 63: E412–E417.
12.
KhojaYTHabisAAWoodGCA. The supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip approach does not provide any clinical advantage over the conventional posterior approach for THA in a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res2023; 481: 1116–1125.
13.
Varela-EgocheagaJRSuárez-SuárezMAFernández-VillánM, et al. Minimally invasive posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Prospective randomised trial. An Sist Sanit Navar2010; 33: 133–143.
14.
RamadanovNBueschgesSLiuK, et al. Direct and indirect comparisons in network meta-analysis of SuperPATH, direct anterior and posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty. Sci Rep2022; 12: 16778.
15.
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 Int2018; 29: 584–596.
16.
JinZWangLQinJ, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Med2023; 55: 1378–1392.
17.
TanBKLKhanRJKHaebichSJ, et al. Piriformis-sparing minimally invasive versus the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year follow-up of a randomized control trial. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 319–326.
18.
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: 2773–2792.
19.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
20.
HigginsJPThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
21.
GuyattGHThorlundKOxmanAD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol2013; 66: 173–183.
22.
XieJZhangHWangL, et al. Comparison of supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach total hip versus conventional posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res2017; 12: 138.
23.
MengWGaoLHuangZ, et al. Supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPath) versus mini-incision posterolateral total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Transl Med2021; 9: 392.
24.
YangCZhuQHanY, et al. Minimally-invasive total hip arthroplasty will improve early postoperative outcomes: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ir J Med Sci2009; 179: 285–290.
BarrettWPTurnerSELeopoldJP.Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1634–1638.
27.
RykovKReiningaIHFSietsmaMS, 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.
28.
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.
29.
BasileGGallinaMPasseriA, et al. Prosthetic joint infections and legal disputes: a threat to the future of prosthetic orthopedics. J Orthop Traumatol2021; 22: 44.
30.
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.
31.
Van DriesscheSBilluartFMartinezL, et al. Short-term comparison of postural effects of three minimally invasive hip approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty: direct anterior, posterolateral and Röttinger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2016; 102: 729–734.
32.
StubbsTMoonASDahlgrenN, et al. Anterior acetabular retractors and the femoral neurovascular bundle in anterior total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2019; 30: 617–620.
33.
SullivanCWBanerjeeSDesaiK, et al. Safe zones for anterior acetabular retractor placement in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: e969–e976.
34.
GiarettaSSpolettiniPRaimondiM, et al. The advantages of a single use retractor for soft tissue protection in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: the preliminary experience. Acta Biomed2023; 94: e2023093.
35.
RathodPAOrishimoKFKremenicIJ, et al. Similar improvement in gait parameters following direct anterior; posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1261–1264.
36.
BurnhamRRJrKiernanHOrtegaLF, et al. Defining the learning curve of anterior total hip arthroplasty after fellowship-specific training. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2022; 30: e131–e138.
37.
KarunaseelanKJDandridgeOMuirhead-AllwoodSK, et al. Capsular ligaments provide a passive stabilizing force to protect the hip against edge loading. Bone Joint Res2021; 10: 594–601.
38.
SchwartzAMGoelRKSweeneyAP, et al. Capsular management in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 2836–2842.
39.
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.
40.
BuschAWegnerAWassenaarD, et al. SuperPath® vs. direct anterior approach: a retrospective comparison between two minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopadie (Heidelberg)2022; 51: 986–995.
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.
