Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide
- 815 Downloads
Hip arthroplasty is one of the most common and successful surgical procedures worldwide. Component design and materials as well as surgical techniques constantly evolve. There is no consensus among surgeons regarding the ideal surgical approach and method of fixation.
Materials and methods
292 orthopedic surgeons of 10 subspecialties from 57 countries were surveyed on their choice of surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty. Their preferences were analyzed according to country of origin, field of expertise and seniority, and compared to current publications.
The response rate was 95–98 %. Surgeons were split between the posterior approach (45 %) and the direct lateral approach (42 %) followed by the anterior approach (10 %) or other (3 %). North American surgeons favored the posterior approach more often than Europeans (69 % compared to 36 %, P < 0.0001) and surgeons from other countries (69 % compared to 45 %, P = 0.01). Sixty-eight percent of all surgeons routinely used noncemented hip prosthesis while 16 % use cemented and 16 % hybrid fixation. Noncemented fixation was preferred among surgeons from Europe and North America compared to other countries (73 % compared to 55 %, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences based on subspecialty, seniority or the number of years of experience.
The most common surgical approaches in use in hip arthroplasty are posterior and lateral. Anterior approach is used by a minority of orthopedic surgeons for that purpose. Cementing hip prosthesis is falling out of favor among orthopedic surgeons worldwide. The trend toward un-cemented hip arthroplasty is not well supported in the current literature.
KeywordsHip Arthroplasty Cement Surgical approach
Esther Eshkol is thanked for editorial assistance.
- 11.Jolles BM, Bogoch ER (2006) Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9(3):CD003828Google Scholar
- 16.Auffarth A, Resch H, Lederer S, Karpik S, Hitzl W, Bogner R, Mayer M, Matis N (2011) Does the choice of approach for hip hemiarthroplasty in geriatric patients significantly influence early postoperative outcomes? A randomized-controlled trial comparing the modified Smith-Petersen and Hardinge approaches. J Trauma 70(5):1257–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Havelin LI, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB (1995) The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses. A review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(10):1543–1550PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Pitto RP, Koessler M, Kuehle JW (1999) Comparison of fixation of the femoral component without cement and fixation with use of a bone-vacuum cementing technique for the prevention of fat embolism during total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(6):831–843PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Furnes O, Havelin LI (2006) Does cement increase the risk of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty? Revision rates in 56,275 cemented and uncemented primary THAs followed for 0–16 years in the Norwegian arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 77(3):351–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar