Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morshed S, Bozic KJ, Ries MD, Malchau H, Colford JM Jr (2007) Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop 78(3):315–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huo MH, Osier CJ (2008) Is cement still a fixation option for total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 23(7 Suppl):51–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Puolakka TJ, Pajamäki KJ, Pulkkinen PO, Nevalainen JK (1999) Poor survival of cementless Biomet total hip: a report on 1,047 hips from the finnish arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 70(5):425–429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Pour AE, Hozack WJ (2010) Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25(5):671-9.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barton C, Kim PR (2009) Complications of the direct anterior approach for total hiparthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 40(3):371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Spindler KP (2005) Evidence-based medicine for orthopedic surgeons. J Knee Surg 18(1):57–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Suk M, Hanson B, Helfet DL (2010) Evidence-based orthopedic surgery: is it possible? Orthop Clin North Am 241(2):139–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jolles BM, Bogoch ER (2004) Surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty: direct lateral or posterior? J Rheumatol 31(9):1790–1796

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindgren V, Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Wretenberg P (2012) The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 83(6):559–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ (2006) Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):CD003828

    Google Scholar 

  12. Teratani T, Naito M, Shiramizu K (2010) Intraoperative muscle damage in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25(6):977–981 Epub 2009 Jul 4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kakar S, Tornetta P 3rd, Schemitsch EH, International Hip Fracture Research Collaborative et al (2007) Technical considerations in the operative management of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a multinational survey. J Trauma 63(3):641–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alecci V, Valente M, Crucil M, Minerva M, Pellegrino CM, Sabbadini DD (2011) Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol 12(3):123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Müller M, Schwachmeyer V, Tohtz S, Tohtz S, Duda GN, Perka C, Heller MO (2012) The direct lateral approach: impact on gait patterns, foot progression angle and pain in comparison with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(5):725–731

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):1257–1262

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):1543–1550

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE (2000) The Norwegian arthroplasty register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 71(4):337–353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Havelin LI, Robertsson O, Fenstad AM, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Furnes O (2011) A Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the nordic arthroplasty register association (NARA). J Bone Joint Surg Am 21(93 Suppl 3):13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Emerson RH Jr, Head WC, Emerson CB, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) A comparison of cemented and cementless titanium femoral components used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a radiographic and survivorship study. J Arthroplast 17(5):584–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Müller LA, Wenger N, Schramm M, Hohmann D, Forst R, Carl HD (2011) 17-year follow-up of the rough-blasted threaded Weill cup in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(4):557–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Wong C (2002) Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 84(A10):1823–1828

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ström H, Kolstad K, Mallmin H, Sahlstedt B, Milbrink J (2006) Comparison of the uncemented Cone and the cemented Bimetric hip prosthesis in young patients with osteoarthritis: an RSA, clinical and radiographic study. Acta Orthop 77(1):71–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burston BJ, Barnett AJ, Amirfeyz R, Yates PJ, Bannister GC (2012) Clinical and radiological results of the collarless polished tapered stem at 15 years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(7):889–894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Clement ND, Biant LC, Breusch SJ (2012) Total hip arthroplasty: to cement or not to cement the acetabular socket? A critical review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(3):411–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YH, Kim JS, Park JW, Joo JH (2011) Comparison of total hip replacement with and without cement in patients younger than 50 years of age: the results at 18 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(4):449–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Corten K, Bourne RB, Charron KD, Au K, Rorabeck CH (2011) Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement: a randomized trial. A concise follow-up, at twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 20 93(14):1335–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim YH, Oh SW, Kim JS (2002) Prevalence of fat embolism following bilateral simultaneous and unilateral total hip arthroplasty performed with or without cement : a prospective, randomized clinical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(A8):1372–1379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Christie J, Burnett R, Potts HR, Pell AC (1994) Echocardiography of transatrial embolism during cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(3):409–412

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Koessler MJ, Fabiani R, Hamer H, Pitto RP (2001) The clinical relevance of embolic events detected by transesophageal echocardiography during cemented total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg 92(1):49–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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):831–843

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nayak KN, Mulliken B, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Woolfrey MR (1997) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification in cemented versus noncemented total hip joint replacement in patients with osteoarthrosis: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg 40(5):368–374

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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):351–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Esther Eshkol is thanked for editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman Street, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel

    Ofir Chechik, Morsi Khashan, Ran Lador, Moshe Salai & Eyal Amar

Authors
  1. Ofir Chechik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morsi Khashan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ran Lador
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Moshe Salai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eyal Amar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofir Chechik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chechik, O., Khashan, M., Lador, R. et al. Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133, 1595–1600 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation