Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 2, pp 455–463 | Cite as

Does the Direct Anterior Approach in THA Offer Faster Rehabilitation and Comparable Safety to the Posterior Approach?

  • José A. Rodriguez
  • Ajit J. Deshmukh
  • Parthiv A. Rathod
  • Michelle L. Greiz
  • Prashant P. Deshmane
  • Matthew S. Hepinstall
  • Amar S. Ranawat
Symposium: 2013 Hip Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

Newer surgical approaches to THA, such as the direct anterior approach, may influence a patient’s time to recovery, but it is important to make sure that these approaches do not compromise reconstructive safety or accuracy.

Questions/purposes

We compared the direct anterior approach and conventional posterior approach in terms of (1) recovery of hip function after primary THA, (2) general health outcomes, (3) operative time and surgical complications, and (4) accuracy of component placement.

Methods

In this prospective, comparative, nonrandomized study of 120 patients (60 direct anterior THA, 60 posterior THAs), we assessed functional recovery using the VAS pain score, timed up and go (TUG) test, motor component of the Functional Independence Measure™ (M-FIM™), UCLA activity score, Harris hip score, and patient-maintained subjective milestone diary and general health outcome using SF-12 scores. Operative time, complications, and component placement were also compared.

Results

Functional recovery was faster in patients with the direct anterior approach on the basis of TUG and M-FIM™ up to 2 weeks; no differences were found in terms of the other metrics we used, and no differences were observed between groups beyond 6 weeks. General health outcomes, operative time, and complications were similar between groups. No clinically important differences were observed in terms of implant alignment.

Conclusions

We observed very modest functional advantages early in recovery after direct anterior THA compared to posterior-approach THA. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings, and these findings may not generalize well to lower-volume practice settings or to surgeons earlier in the learning curve of direct anterior THA.

Level of Evidence

Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Heterotopic Ossification Functional Independence Measure Direct Anterior Approach Posterior Group General Health Outcome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Kelly Stets MD, Raman Thakur MD, Anitha Jacob PA-C, Julie Pate PA-C, Leah Verebes PA, Neil Moskowitz PT, Daniel Gross DPT, PT, and Kshitij Agrawal MD for their help with this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Alecci V, Valente M, Crucil M, Minerva M, Pellegrino CM, Sabbadini DD. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:123–129.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bal BS, Haltom D, Aleto T, Barrett M. Early complications of primary total hip replacement performed with a two-incision minimally invasive technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2432–2438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Seng BE, Adams JB. Enhanced early outcomes with the anterior supine intermuscular approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 6):107–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger RA, Jacobs JJ, Meneghini RM, Della Valle C, Paprosky W, Rosenberg AG. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:239–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, Benke MT, Graeter JH, Holmes AS, Haleem-Smith H, Tuan RS, Unger AS. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1392–1398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:139–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dastane M, Dorr LD, Tarwala R, Wan Z. Hip offset in total hip arthroplasty: quantitative measurement with navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:429–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorr LD, Maheshwari AV, Long WT, Wan Z, Sirianni L. Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1153–1160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorr LD, Thomas D, Long WT, Polatin PB, Sirianni LE. Psychologic reasons for patients preferring minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;458:94–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellison B, Cheney NA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH. Minimal stress shielding with a Mallory-Head titanium femoral stem with proximal porous coating in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009;4:42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guide to the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM), Version 4.0. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo; 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty: an end result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969:51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hershkovitz K, Brill S. Get up and go—home. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006;18:301–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kosinski M. Scoring the SF-12 physical and mental summary measures. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin. 1997;5:3–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liaw CK, Yang RS, Hou SM, Wu TY, Fuh CS. Measurement of acetabular cup anteversion on simulated radiographs. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:468–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lovell TP. Single-incision direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty using a standard operating table. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:64–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maffiuletti NA, Impellizzeri FM, Widler K, Bizzini M, Kain MS, Munzinger U, Leunig M. Spatiotemporal parameters of gait after total hip replacement: anterior versus posterior approach. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40:407–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maheshwari AV, Blum YC, Shekhar L, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Multimodal pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty at the Ranawat Orthopaedic Center. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1418–1423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matta JM, Shahrdar C, Ferguson T. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:115–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayr E, Nogler M, Benedetti MG, Kessler O, Reinthaler A, Krismer M, Leardini A. A prospective randomized assessment of earlier functional recovery in THA patients treated by minimally invasive direct anterior approach: a gait analysis study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009;24:812–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:698–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O’Brien S, Beverland D, A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:701–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement: a comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:801–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1226–1232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Meneghini RM, Hanssen AD. Slower recovery after two-incision than mini-posterior-incision total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1000–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS, Rasquinha VJ. Mastering the art of cemented femoral stem fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ranawat CS, Rao RR, Rodriguez JA, Bhende HS. Correction of limb-length inequality during total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:715–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Pour AE, Hozack WJ. Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:671–679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spaans AJ, van den Hout JA, Bolder SB. High complication rate in the early experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:342–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin JV, Schurman DJ. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1353–1358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Woolson ST, Pouliot MA, Huddleston JI. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an anterior approach and a fracture table: short-term results from a community hospital. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:999–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • José A. Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Ajit J. Deshmukh
    • 1
  • Parthiv A. Rathod
    • 1
  • Michelle L. Greiz
    • 1
  • Prashant P. Deshmane
    • 1
  • Matthew S. Hepinstall
    • 1
  • Amar S. Ranawat
    • 1
  1. 1.The Center for Joint Preservation and ReconstructionNorth Shore LIJ/Lenox Hill HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations