Where Are We Now?
The direct anterior approach for THA has garnered substantial interest among total joint surgeons. A Google search for “anterior approach hip” returned 1,190,000 matches. The most common claims of superiority of direct anterior approach include: Decreased length of hospital stay, quicker rehabilitation, less blood loss, shorter surgery, less postoperative pain, lower risk of dislocation, more natural return to function and activity, and shorter incisions. In fact, one manufacturer’s website (http://www.aboutstryker.com/hip/procedures/procedures-daa.php) emphasizes that the new approach can be done through a three or four inch incision, compared to eight to 12 inches for a more-traditional approach, which the manufacturer also says “requires a significant disturbance of the joint and connecting tissues.”
Ironically, direct anterior is considered a new approach even though the anterior approach (which is the lower limb of a classic Smith-Peterson approach) was described in 1949 and was used during my residency training and musculoskeletal oncology training (1979–1986). The approach was recommended for patients with higher risk of dislocation (dementia, neuromuscular disorders) and was used for treatment of benign and malignant disease of the hip. In practice, I have also used it in cases of simultaneous bilateral THA.
Where Do We Need To Go?
The study by Sheath and colleagues supports the safety of anterior approach with regard to dislocation and revision. However, it still leaves open a few promising and important avenues for future work. First, this study did not comment on intraoperative fracture or neuropraxia; other studies have done so [1, 6] but it remains unclear from the patient’s point of view whether any putative advantages of this approach are offset by these complications, which can be alarmingly common and sometimes severe. Second, although Sheath and colleagues found the dislocation rate to be lower with the direct anterior approach than the posterior approach, the anterolateral approach still seems to have fewer dislocations than any other. Additionally, contemporary repair techniques have been shown to reduce the risk of dislocation using posterior approaches rather substantially [8]. As surprising as it is, we still do not have a clear sense for how this should factor into a surgeon’s choice of approaches, or how to weigh it against the potential advantages of some of the newer “less-invasive” approaches.
The posterior and direct anterior approaches are evolving. My personal observation is that there is little difference in the length of incision, particularly with the contemporary “mini-posterior” approach. Most importantly, the evolution of pain management and rehabilitation protocols have made things easier on patients regardless of the approach. Poehling-Monaghan and colleagues [7] directly compared anterior approach versus mini-posterior approach using modern protocols and found no differences in hospital length of stay, operative or inpatient complications, intravenous narcotic breakthrough control, stair or feet walked in the hospital, or percentage discharged home, and pointed to some problems and shortcomings with the direct anterior approach. Moreover, Christensen and colleagues [3] showed a greater return to the operating room with wound problems with direct anterior (p < 0.007). Clearly, we still have much to learn about the pros and cons of these approaches.
How Do We Get There?
I believe we should continue to train our residents and fellows in both anterior and posterior approaches to the hip, making sure they understand the true advantages and disadvantages of each. Misleading marketing or “false” advertising should be avoided as it is a violation of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) ethics policies [2] and may violate Federal laws [4]. In their recent study, Higgins and colleagues argued: “Current evidence comparing outcomes following anterior versus posterior THA does not demonstrate clear superiority of either approach” [5]. I agree with his recommendation that the choice be made based on patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and patient preferences. We have an opportunity to positively improve the care of the THA patient. Ideally, we should perform well designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials comparing hip approaches. I believe organizations and societies such as the AAOS, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, The Hip Society, and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons should utilize their available funding toward these trials and I believe we as surgeons should participate in these studies without additional compensation. Additionally, the American Joint Replacement Registry, may be a resource for more complete data.
References
Alexandrov T, Ahimann ER, Menendez LR. Early clinical and radiographic results of minimally invasive anterior approach hip arthroplasty. Adv Orthop. 2014;2014:954208.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Standards of professionalism: Advertising by orthopaedic surgeons. Available at: http://olpassets.aaos.org/estudy/resident_ethics/Guide/G3-Advertising.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2015.
Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1839–1841.
Federal Trade Commission Act. Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/ftca.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2015.
Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:419–434.
Mizra AJ, Lombardi AV Jr, Morris MJ, Berend KR. A mini-anterior approach to the hip for total joint replacement: optimizing results: Improving hip joint replacement outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-BA:32–35.
Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: Surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:623–631.
Prietzel T, Hammer N, Schleifenbaum S, Adler D, Pretzsch M, Köhler L, Petermann M, Faraq M, Panzert S, Bauer S, von Salis-Soqlio G. The impact of capsular repair on the dislocation rate after primary total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective analysis of 1972 cases. Z Orthop Unfall. 2014;152:130–143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This CORR Insights® is a commentary on the article “Anterior and Anterolateral Approaches for THA Are Associated With Lower Dislocation Risk Without Higher Revision Risk” by Sheth and colleagues available at: DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4230-0.
The author certifies that he, or any member of his immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR ® or the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®.
This CORR Insights® comment refers to the article available at DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4230-0.
About this article
Cite this article
Clyburn, T.A. CORR Insights®: Anterior and Anterolateral Approaches for THA Are Associated With Lower Dislocation Risk Without Higher Revision Risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473, 3409–3411 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4337-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4337-3