While total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains effective for improvement of pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis, there remain areas of continued pursuit of excellence, including decreasing rates of dislocation, leg length discrepancy, implant loosening, and infection. This review article covers several bearing surfaces and articulations, computer-assisted navigation and robotic technology, and minimally invasive surgical approaches that have sought to improve such outcomes. Perhaps the most significant improvement to THA implant longevity has been the broad adoption of highly cross-linked polyethylene, with low wear rates. Similarly, navigation and robotic technology has proven to more reproducibly achieve intraoperative component positioning, which has demonstrated clinical benefit with decreased risk of dislocation in a number of studies. Given the projected increase in THA over the coming decades, continued investigation of effective incorporation of technology, soft tissue–sparing approaches, and durable implants is imperative to continued pursuit of improved outcomes in THA.
AbdelMPBerryDJ.Current practice trends in primary hip and knee arthroplasties among members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons: a long-term update. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7):S24–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.006.
2.
AbdelMPChalmersBPTrousdaleRTHanssenADPagnanoMW.Randomized clinical trial of 2-incision vs mini-posterior total hip arthroplasty: differences persist at 10 years. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(9):2744–2747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.005.
3.
AgarwalSEckhardLWalterWL, et al. The use of computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty is associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation: a study of 6,912 navigated THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(20):1900–1905. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00950.
4.
AggarwalVKElbulukADundonJ, et al. Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(6):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1474.R1.
5.
BabovicNTrousdaleRT.Total hip arthroplasty using highly cross-linked polyethylene in patients younger than 50 years with minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(5):815–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.12.005.
6.
BakerCEBukowskiBRAbdelMPTrousdaleRT. The Lawrence D. Dorr surgical techniques & technologies award: using big heads and small acetabular components with highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: is it safe?J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(7):S11–S17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.01.067.
7.
BeckmannJStengelDTingartMGötzJGrifkaJLüringC.Navigated cup implantation in hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(5):538–544. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453670903350073.
8.
BendichIVigdorchikJMSharmaAK, et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6):1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.085.
9.
BengoaFJHowardLCNeufeldMEGarbuzDS.Malseating of modular dual mobility liners: high prevalence in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7S):S211-S216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.094.
10.
BergerRAJacobsJJMeneghiniRMDella ValleCPaproskyWRosenbergAG.Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;429:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150127.80647.80.
11.
BerryDJBozicKJ.Current practice patterns in primary hip and knee arthroplasty among members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6):2–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.033.
12.
BohlDDNolteMTOngKLauECalkinsTEDella ValleCJ.Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(3):250–256. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00108.
13.
BoylanMSuchmanKVigdorchikJSloverJBoscoJ.Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1019–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.033.
14.
BrinkmanJCChristopherZKMooreMLPollockJRHaglinJMBinghamJS.Patient Interest in robotic total joint arthroplasty is exponential: a 10-year Google trends analysis. Arthroplasty Today. 2022;15:13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2022.02.015.
15.
BukowskiBRBakerCEAbdelMPTrousdaleRT.Pairing 40-mm femoral heads with the smallest compatible acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes in 177 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(7):S582–S587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.090.
16.
ButlerJSingletonAMillerRMorseBNaylorBDeCookC.Bikini incision vs longitudinal incision for anterior total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arthroplasty Today. 2022;17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2022.06.010.
17.
ChaYHYooJIKimJT, et al. Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(11):1457–1466. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B11.BJJ-2020-0610.R2.
18.
ChaiWXuCGuoRW, et al. Does robotic-assisted computer navigation improve acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe III/IV hip dysplasia? A propensity score case-match analysis. Int Orthop. 2022;46(4):769–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05232-w.
ChalmersBPMangoldDGHanssenADPagnanoMWTrousdaleRTAbdelMP.Uniformly low serum cobalt levels after modular dual-mobility total hip arthroplasties with ceramic heads: a prospective study in high-risk patients. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(6)(suppl b):57–61. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1403.R1.
21.
ChalmersBPPerryKITauntonMJMabryTMAbdelMP.Diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9321-3.
22.
CharneyMPaxtonEWStradiottoR, et al. A comparison of risk of dislocation and cause-specific revision between direct anterior and posterior approach following elective cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(6):1651–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.033.
23.
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 Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):883–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.027.
24.
ChowJPenenbergBMurphyS.Modified micro-superior percutaneously-assisted total hip: early experiences & case reports. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(3):146–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-011-9090-y.
25.
D’ApuzzoMRKochCNEspositoCIElpersMEWrightTMWestrichGH.Assessment of damage on a dual mobility acetabular system. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(8):1828–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.039.
26.
DumbletonJHManleyMTEdidinAA.A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(5):649–661. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.33664.
27.
EkhtiariSSeftonAKWoodTJPetruccelliDTWinemakerMJde BeerJD.The changing characteristics of arthroplasty patients: a retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(7):2418–2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.051.
EtoSHwangKHuddlestonJIAmanatullahDFMaloneyWJGoodmanSB.The direct anterior approach is associated with early revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.012.
30.
FleischmanANTarabichiMMagnerZParviziJRothmanRH.Mechanical complications following total hip arthroplasty based on surgical approach: a large, single-institution cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1255–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.029.
31.
FontalisAKayaniBThompsonJWPlastowRHaddadFS.Robotic total hip arthroplasty: past, present and future. Orthopaedics Traum. 2022;36(1):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2021.11.002.
32.
GkiatasISharmaAKGreenbergADuncanSTChalmersBPSculcoPK.Serum metal ion levels in modular dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review. J Orthopaedics. 2020;21:432–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.019.
33.
Glyn-JonesSThomasGERGarfjeld-RobertsP, et al. The John Charnley Award: highly crosslinked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty decreases long-term wear: a double-blind randomized trial. Clin Orthop Related Res. 2015;473(2):432–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3735-2.
34.
GuptaARedmondJMHammarstedtJEPetrakosAEVemulaSPDombBG.Does robotic-assisted computer navigation affect acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty in the obese patient? A comparison study. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(12):2204–2207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.062.
35.
HanlyRJSokolowskiSTimperleyAJ.The SPAIRE technique allows sparing of the piriformis and obturator internus in a modified posterior approach to the hip. HIP International. 2017;27(2):205–209. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000490.
36.
HannaSASomervilleLMcCaldenRWNaudieDDMacDonaldSJ.Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2016;98–B(1):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36527.
37.
HaynesJAHopperRHHoHMcDonaldJFParksNLHamiltonWG.Direct anterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty lowers the risk of dislocation compared to the posterior approach: a single institution experience. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(3):495–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.011.
38.
HeckmannNWeitzmanDSJaffriHBerryDJSpringerBDLiebermanJR.Trends in the use of dual mobility bearings in hip arthroplasty: an analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(7)(suppl B):27–32. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1669.R1.
39.
HeckmannNDSivasundaramLSteflMDKangHPBaslerETLiebermanJR.Total hip arthroplasty bearing surface trends in the United States from 2007 to 2014: the rise of ceramic on polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1757–1763.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.040.
40.
HigginsBTBarlowDRHeagertyNELinTJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):419–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.020.
41.
HorbergJVCoobsBRJiwanlalAKBetzleCJCappsSGMoskalJT.Dislocation rates following total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach in a consecutive, non-selective cohort. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(7)(suppl B):38–45. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-2297.R1.
42.
HowieDWHolubowyczOTMiddletonR; The large articulation study group. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(12):1095–1102. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00570.
43.
KoperMVerdijkRBosK.Asymptomatic intraprosthetic dual mobility cup dislocation with increased metal ion levels. Arthroplasty Today. 2019;5(1):38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2018.12.001.
44.
KorberSAntoniosJKSivasundaramL, et al. Utilization of technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2018. Arthroplasty Today. 2021;12:36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.08.020.
45.
KuzykPRTSacconeMSpragueSSimunovicNBhandariMSchemitschEH. Cross-linked versus conventional polyethylene for total hip replacement: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Brit. 2011;93(5):593–600. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.25908.
MaldonadoDRGoCCKyinC, et al. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty is more cost-effective than manual total hip arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29(4):e168–e177. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00498.
50.
MarattJDGagnierJJButlerPDHallstromBRUrquhartAGRobertsKC.No difference in dislocation seen in anterior vs posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(9):127–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.071.
51.
MatsushitaANakashimaYJingushiSYamamotoTKuraokaAIwamotoY.Effects of the femoral offset and the head size on the safe range of motion in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(4):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.02.008.
52.
MurphySB.Tissue-preserving, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a superior capsulotomy. In: HozackWJKrismerMNoglerM, et al, eds. Min Invasive Total Joint Arthroplasty. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2004:101–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59298-0_17.
53.
PagnanoMWTrousdaleRTMeneghiniRMHanssenAD.Slower recovery after two-incision than mini-posterior-incision total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5):1000–1006. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00804.
54.
ParviziJRestrepoCMaltenfortMG.Total hip arthroplasty performed through direct anterior approach provides superior early outcome: results of a randomized, prospective study. Orthop Clin North Am. 2016;47(3):497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2016.03.003.
55.
PenenbergBLBollingWSRileyM.Percutaneously assisted total hip arthroplasty (PATH): a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90(suppl 4):209–220. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00673.
56.
RamadanovN.An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on total hip arthroplasty through superPATH versus conventional approaches. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(5):807–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13239.
57.
RedmondJMGuptaAHammarstedtJEPetrakosAEFinchNADombBG.The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(1):50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.003.
58.
ReinaNPareekAKrychAJPagnanoMWBerryDJAbdelMP.Dual-mobility constructs in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(3):594–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.020.
59.
SharmaAKCizmicZCarrollKM, et al. Computer navigation for revision total hip arthroplasty reduces dislocation rates. Indian J Orthop. 2022;56(6):1061–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00606-7.
60.
SimcoxTSinghVOakleyCTKoenigJASchwarzkopfRRozellJC.Comparison of utilization and short-term complications between technology-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30(8):e673–e682. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00698.
61.
SinghVRealyvasquezJSimcoxTRozellJCSchwarzkopfRDavidovitchRI.Robotics versus navigation versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: does the use of technology yield superior outcomes?J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(8):2801–2807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.074.
62.
SnijdersTvan GaalenSMde GastA.Precision and accuracy of imageless navigation versus freehand implantation of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robo. 2017;13(4):e1843. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1843.
63.
TaninoH.CORR insights: 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 Res. 2022;481(6):1126-1128. https://doi.org/10.1097/CO-RR.0000000000002508.
64.
TauntonMJMasonJBOdumSMSpringerBD.Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9):169–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.051.
65.
WaddellJJohnsonKHeinWRaabeJFitzGeraldGTuribioF.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.
66.
WattsCDHoudekMTWagnerERSculcoPKChalmersBPTauntonMJ.High risk of wound complications following direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in obese patients. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(12):2296–2298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.016.
67.
WeintraubMTDeBenedettiANamD, et al. Dual-mobility versus large femoral heads in revision total hip arthroplasty: interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7S):S206-S210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.089.
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.
