Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Approach Comparisons in Total Hip Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Total Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

This article comprises a variety of comparisons between the several approaches employed for total hip arthroplasty (THA), highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses attributed to each approach. Moreover, it provides additional information regarding staged and simultaneous bilateral THA, as well as the most suitable methods for the treatment of femoral fractures in the elderly. Most of the comparisons included in this work provide details that juxtapose one of the most utilized surgical approaches, the DAA, with other conventional approaches and novel technique of supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach (SuperPATH). Additionally, we provide information on comparisons of the relative outcomes of conventional approaches and robotic THA, as well as an examination of the capsulectomy and capsulotomy techniques.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Post ZD, et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22:595–603. https://journals.lww.com/jaaos/fulltext/2014/09000/direct_anterior_approach_for_total_ip.7.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  2. Maldonado DR, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip replacement: comparison of minimum 2-year outcomes. HIP Int. 2019;31(2):166–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019881937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Taunton MJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, et al. John Charnley award: randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: which provides better functional recovery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:216–29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015;58:128–39.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lazaru P, et al. Direct anterior approach (DAA) vs. conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a RCT meta-analysis with an overview of related meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255888. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the hospital for special surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:137–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00116-0. PMID: 15062699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Szendroi M, Sztrinkai G, Vass R, Kiss J. The impact of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty on the standard procedure. Int Orthop. 2006;30:160–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0049-8. PMID: 16552579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wall SJ, Mears SC. Analysis of published evidence on minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:55–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.010. PMID: 18922374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moreau P. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using hueter’s direct anterior approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(5):771–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2158-2. PMID: 29511824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kayani B, Konan S, Chandramohan R, Haddad FS. The direct superior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2019;80(6):320–4. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2019.80.6.320. PMID: 31180766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Galakatos GR. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Mo Med. 2018;115(6):537–41. PMID: 30643349.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sculco TP, Boettner F. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the posterior approach. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:205–14. PMID: 16958456

    Google Scholar 

  13. Basad E, Ishaque B, Stu ̈rz H, Jerosch J. The anterolateral minimally invasive approach for total hip arthroplasty: technique, pitfalls, and way out. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(4):473–viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.05.001. PMID: 19773052

  14. Swanson TV. Posterior single-incision approach to minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2007;31(Suppl 1):S1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0436-4. PMID: 17653544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ilchmann T. Approaches for primary total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2014;24(Suppl 10):S2–6. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000163. PMID: 24970034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wojciechowski P, Kusz D, Kopeć K, Borowski M. Minimally invasive approaches in total hip replacement. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2008;73(3):207–176. PMID: 18847028

    Google Scholar 

  17. Capuano N, Del Buono A, Maffulli N. Tissue preserving total hip arthroplasty using superior capsulotomy. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2015;27(4):334–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-013-0242-7. PMID: 25900826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Migliorini F, Biagini M, Rath B, Meisen N, Tingart M, Eschweiler J. Total hip arthroplasty: minimally invasive surgery or not? Meta-analysis of clinical trials. Int Orthop. 2019;43(7):1573–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4124-3. PMID: 30171273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parratte S, Pagnano MW. Muscle damage during minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: cadaver-based evidence that it is significant. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:231. PMID: 18399584

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, et al. Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:293. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000238859.46615.34. PMID: 17006366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85:39. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200300004-00005. PMID: 14652392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tan SC, Teeter MG, Del BC, et al. Effect of taper design on Trunnionosis in metal on polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1269–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.031. PMID: 25773576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sun X, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of results on early post-operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02218-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Seng BE, et al. Enhanced early outcomes with the anterior supine intermuscular approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl. 6):107–20.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sheth D, Cafri G, Inacio MC, et al. Anterior and anterolateral approaches for tha are associated with lower dislocation risk without higher revision risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3401–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Rathod PA, et al. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:455–63.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, et al. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(Suppl):169–72.

    Google Scholar 

  28. de Steiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3860.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Seng BE, Berend KR, Ajluni AF, et al. Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40:343.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jewett BA, Collis DK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:503.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Huang X-t, et al. Comparisons between direct anterior approach and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty in postoperative orthopaedic complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(6):1707–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015;58:128–39.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982;64:17–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ. Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:34–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Connolly KP, Kamath AF. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: literature review of variations in surgical technique. World J Orthop. 2016;7:38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad FS. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017;99:732–40.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chen AF, Chen CL, Low S, et al. Higher acetabular anteversion in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective case-control study. HSS J. 2016;12:240–4.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pogliacomi F, De Filippo M, Paraskevopoulos A, Alesci M, Marenghi P, Ceccarelli F. Mini-incision direct lateral approach versus anterior mini invasive approach in total hip replacement: results 1 year after surgery. Acta Biomed. 2012;83:114–21.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hürlimann M, Schiapparelli FF, Rotigliano N, Testa E, Amsler F, Hirschmann MT. Influence of surgical approach on heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty—is minimal invasive better? A case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:27.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Nordsletten L. Do postoperative results differ in a randomized trial between a direct anterior and a direct lateral approach in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477:145–55.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Aggarwal VK, Elbuluk A, Dundon J, et al. Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:646–51.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hart A, Wyles CC, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Pagnano MW, Taunton MJ. Thirty-day major and minor complications following total hip arthroplasty-a comparison of the direct anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches. J Arthroplast. 2019;34:2681–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheth D, Cafri G, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Namba RS. Anterior and anterolateral approaches for THA are associated with lower dislocation risk without higher revision risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3401–8.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fleischman AN, Tarabichi M, Magner Z, Parvizi J, Rothman RH. Mechanical complications following total hip arthroplasty based on surgical approach: a large, single-institution cohort study. J Arthroplast. 2019;34:1255–60.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zomar BO, Bryant D, Hunter S, Howard JL, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA. A randomised trial comparing spatio-temporal gait parameters after total hip arthroplasty between the direct anterior and direct lateral surgical approaches. Hip Int. 2018;28:478–84.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Restrepo C, Mortazavi SM, Brothers J, Parvizi J, Rothman RH. Hip dislocation: are hip precautions necessary in anterior approaches. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:417–22.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Takada R, Jinno T, Miyatake K, et al. Direct anterior versus anterolateral approach in one-stage supine total hip arthroplasty. Focused on nerve injury: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23:783–7.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Pripp AH, Nordsletten L. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res. 2015;33:1305–10.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Watts CD, Houdek MT, Wagner ER, Sculco PK, Chalmers BP, Taunton MJ. High risk of wound complications following direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in obese patients. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:2296–8.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:1839–41.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Purcell RL, Parks NL, Gargiulo JM, Hamilton WG. Severely obese patients have a higher risk of infection after direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:162–5.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Brun OL, Sund HN, Nordsletten L, Röhrl SM, Mjaaland KE. Component placement in direct lateral vs minimally invasive anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: radiographic outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplast. 2019;34:1718–22.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gromov K, Greene ME, Huddleston JI, et al. Acetabular dysplasia and surgical approaches other than direct anterior increases risk for malpositioning of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:835–41.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Maciąg B, et al. Systematic review of radiological analysis of total hip replacement via direct anterior approach in comparison to other approaches – study protocol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-88637/v1.

  55. Ilchmann T. Approaches for primary total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2014;24:S2–6. [CrossRef]

    Google Scholar 

  56. Graves SC, Dropkin BM, Keeney BJ, Lurie JD, Tomek IM. Does Surgical Approach Affect Patient-reported Function After Primary THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:971–81. [CrossRef]

    Google Scholar 

  57. Smith-Petersen MN. A new supra-articular subperiosteal approach to the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1917;2:592–5.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jelsma J, Pijnenburg R, Boons HW, Eggen PJ, Kleijn LL, Lacroix H, Noten HJ. Limited benefits of the direct anterior approach in primary hip arthroplasty: a prospective single centre cohort study. J Orthop. 2017;14:53–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kyriakopoulos G, Poultsides L, Christofilopoulos P. Total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach. EFORT Open Rev. 2018;3:574–83. [CrossRef]

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wang Z, Hou J-Z, Wu C-H, Zhou Y-J, Gu X-M, Wang H-H, Feng W, Cheng Y-X, Sheng X, Bao H-W. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Sep 6;13(1):229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0929-4. PMID: 30189881; PMCID: PMC6127950.

  61. Harrison CL, Thomson AI, Cutts S, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. Research synthesis of recommended acetabular cup orientations for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:377–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

    Google Scholar 

  62. Board T, Bhaskar D, Rajpura A. Current concepts in acetabular positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51:386–96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

    Google Scholar 

  63. Moretti VM Zachary DP. Surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop, Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd. 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5525517/.

  64. Gazendam A, et al. Short-term outcomes vary by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04131-4.

  65. Trousdale WH, Taunton MJ, Mabry TM, et al. Patient slasty. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:1164–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Danoff JR, Goel R, Sutton R, et al. How much pain is significant? Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the visual analog scale for pain after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2018;33:S71–S75 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Achten J, Parsons NR, Edlin RP, et al. A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Taunton MJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, et al. John Charnley award: randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: which provides better functional recovery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:216–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cheng TE, Wallis JA, Taylor NF, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty—comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:883–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Brismar BH, Hallert O, Tedhamre A, Lindgren JU. Early gain in pain reduction and hip function, but more complications following the direct anterior minimally invasive approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial of 100 patients with 5 years of follow up. Acta Orthop. 2018;89:484–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1504505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nistor D-V, Caterev S, Bolboacă S-D, et al. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop (SICOT). 2017;41:2245–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Nordsletten L. Do postoperative results differ in a randomized trial between a direct anterior and a direct lateral approach in THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477:145–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Martin R, Clayson PE, Troussel S, et al. Anterolateral minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study with a follow-up of 1 year. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:1362–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2013;28:1634–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ortho, ATX, ATX Ortho. SuperPATH or superior approach to the hip in total hip replacement. ATX Orthop. 2021; https://www.atxortho.com/superior/approach-to-the-hip-in-total-hip-replacement/

  76. Ramadanov N, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between direct anterior approach (DAA) and Superpath in total hip replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02315-7.

  77. Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the hospital for special surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:137–42.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wills BW, Sheppard ED, Smith WR, Staggers JR, Li P, Shah A, Lee SR, Naranje SM. Impact of operative time on early joint infection and deep vein thrombosis in primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(4):445–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Surace P, Sultan AA, George J, Samuel LT, Khlopas A, Molloy RM, Stearns KL, Mont MA. The association between operative time and short-term complications in total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 89,802 surgeries. J Arthroplast. 2019;34(3):426–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Inoue D, et al. Outcomes of simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty for 256 selected patients in a single surgeon’s practice. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):116–21. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.103b7.bjj-2020-2292.r1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Sheikh E, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Bilateral total hip arthroplasty: one-stage versus two-stage procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:137–41.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kim Y-H, Kwon O-R, Kim J-S. Is one-stage bilateral sequential total hip replacement as safe as unilateral total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91-B(3):316–20.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Stavrakis AI, SooHoo NF, Lieberman JR. Bilateral total hip arthroplasty has similar complication rates to unilateral total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(7):1211–4.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Alfaro-Adrián J, Bayona F, Rech JA, Murray DW. One- or two-stage bilateral total hip replacement. J Arthroplast. 1999;14(4):439–45.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Shao H, Chen C-L, Maltenfort MG, Restrepo C, Rothman RH, Chen AF. Bilateral total hip arthroplasty: 1-stage or 2-stage? A meta-analysis. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(2):689–95.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Sweet MC, et al. Comparison of outcomes after robotic-assisted or conventional total hip arthroplasty at a minimum 2-year follow-up. JBJS Rev. 2021;9(6) https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.rvw.20.00144.

  87. Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Stiehl JB, Mont MA. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):597–604. Epub 2007 Apr 19

    Google Scholar 

  88. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128–33.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wasterlain AS, Buza JA 3rd, Thakkar SC, Schwarzkopf R, Vigdorchik J. Navigation and robotics in total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(3):01874474-201703000-00005.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Chen AF, Kazarian GS, Jessop GW, Makhdom A. Robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(22):1984–92.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Bargar WL, Parise CA, Hankins A, Marlen NA, Campanelli V, Netravali NA. Fourteen year follow-up of randomized clinical trials of active robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2018;33(3):810–4. Epub 2017 Oct 6

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lim SJ, Ko KR, Park CW, Moon YW, Park YS. Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with a short femoral stem: a prospective randomized short-term outcome study. Comput Aided Surg. 2015;20(1):41–6. Epub 2015 Aug 13

    Google Scholar 

  93. Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, Carrero V, Lampe F, Dries S, Quante M, Schwieger K, Hille E, Morlock MM. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(8):1470–8.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Nakamura N, Sugano N, Sakai T, Nakahara I. Does robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless THA result in improved outcomes scores or survivorship compared with hand rasping? Results of a randomized trial at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(11):2169–73.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Domb BG, Chen JW, Lall AC, Perets I, Maldonado DR. Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(20):847–56.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Banchetti R, Dari S, Ricciarini ME, Lup D, Carpinteri F, Catani F, Caldora P. Comparison of conventional versus robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty using the Mako system: an Italian retrospective study. J Health Soc Sci. 2018;3(1):37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Mart J-PS, et al. Robotics in total hip arthroplasty: a review of the evolution, application and evidence base. EFORT Open Rev. 2020; British editorial society of bone and joint surgery, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784137/

  98. Miranda L, et al. Capsular repair vs capsulectomy in total hip arthroplasty. Br Med Bull. 2021;139(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldab011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Woolson ST, Rahimtoola ZO. Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplast. 1999;14:662–8.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Borrero S, Kent Kwoh C, Sartorius J, et al. Brief report: gender and total knee/hip arthroplasty utilization rate in the VA system. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:S54–7.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Williams D, Petruccelli D, Winemaker M, et al. Total joint replacement clinical outcomes: gender differences. Orthop Proc. 2010;92-B:137.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Kazley JM, Banerjee S, Abousayed MM, et al. Classifications in brief: garden classification of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:441–5.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Barıshan FC, Akesen B, Atıcı T, et al. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. J Int Med Res. 2018;46:2717–30.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Koo K-H, Song H-R, Ha Y-C, et al. Role of thrombotic and fibrinolytic disorders in the etiology of Perthes’ disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;399:162–7.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Smith-Petersen MN. A new supra-articular subperiosteal approach to the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg. 1917;s2–15:592–5.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Boll KL. Total hip replacement using Müller’s method. Ugeskr Laeger. 1990;152:1987–9.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Müller ME. Total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1970;72:46–68.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip. A new operation. Lancet. 1961;1:1129–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(61)92063-3. PMID: 15898154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Smith-Petersen MN. Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A:40–6.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Lindholm RV, Puranen J, Kinnunen P. The Moore vitallium femoral-head prosthesis in fractures of the femoral neck. Acta Orthop Scand. 1976;47:70–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453677608998976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Ludloff K. Zur blutigen Einrenkung der angeborrenen Huftluxation. Zeischr Orthop Chir. 1908;22:272–6.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Camenzind RS, Stoffel K, Lash NJ, et al. Direct anterior approach to the hip joint in the lateral decubitus position for joint replacement. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2018;30:276–85.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Khan RJK, Fick D, Khoo P, et al. Less invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21:1038–46.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Lachiewicz PF, Poon ED. Revision of a total hip arthroplasty with a Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component inserted without cement. A follow-up note on the results at five to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80:980–4.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Tripuraneni KR, Munson NR, Archibeck MJ, et al. Acetabular abduction and dislocations in direct anterior vs posterior total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective, matched cohort study. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:2299–302.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Schneeberger AG, Schulz RF, Ganz R. Blood loss in total hip arthroplasty. Lateral position combined with preservation of the capsule versus supine position combined with capsulectomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;117:47–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020050189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Ometti M, et al. Capsulectomy vs capsulotomy in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical outcomes and proprioception evaluation: study protocol for a randomized, controlled, double blinded trial. J Orthop. 2019. Elsevier, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818366/

  118. Gardenbroek T, et al. The Proximal Femur Nail antirotation: an identifiable improvement in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures? J Trauma. 2021. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21818023/

  119. Twittercreator. Ernst Raaymakers. For trochanteric fracture, pertrochanteric, simple. https://surgeryreference.aofoundation.org/orthopedic-trauma/adult trauma/proximal-femur/trochanteric-fracture-pertrochanteric-simple/nailing.

  120. Roland J. Hemiarthroplasty: procedure, recovery, complications, and more. Healthline. 2018. Healthline Media. https://www.healthline.com/health/hemiarthroplasty#hemiarthroplasty-vs-thr

  121. Hip Hemiarthroplasty. Florida Orthopaedic Institute, https://www.floridaortho.com/specialties/hip-thigh/hip-hemiarthroplasty/.

  122. Junming C. et al, Comparison of clinical outcomes with hip replacement versus PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Medicine. 2021;100(9) https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000024166.

  123. Tucker A, Donnelly KJ, Rowan C, et al. Is the best plate a nail? A review of 3230 unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Dung TT, Hieu ND, Son LM, et al. Primary cementless bipolar long stem hemiarthroplasty for unstable osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly patients. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7:4342–6.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Sik CW, Hoon AJ, Joon-Hyuk K, et al. Cementless bipolar hemi- arthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Surg. 2010;2:221–6.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Choi HJ, Kim E, Shin YJ, et al. The timing of surgery and mortality in elderly hip fractures: a retrospective, multicenteric cohort study. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48:599–604.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Wu K, Xu Y, Lei Z, et al. Which implant is better for beginners to learn to treat geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures: a randomised controlled trial of surgeons, metalwork, and patients. J Orthop Translat. 2020;21:18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Park-Wyllie LY, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, et al. Bisphosphonate use and risk of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in older women. JAMA. 2011;305:783–9.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Min BW, Lee KJ, Oh JK, et al. The treatment strategies for failed fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury. 2019;50:1339–46.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Parker MJ, Cawley S. Sliding hip screw versus the Targon PFT nail for trochanteric hip fractures: a randomised trial of 400 patients. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:1210–5.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Lee YK, Ha YC, Chang BK, et al. Cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty using a hydroxyapatite-coated long stem for osteoorotic unstable interochanteric fractures. Arthrpolasty. 2011;26:626–32.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Chai W, Kong X, Yang M, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty for arthrodesed hips. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2020;16:357–68.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Luo X, He S, Zeng D, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures: case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;38:37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Kulachote N, Sa-Ngasoongsong P, Sirisreetreerux N, et al. Predicting factors for return to prefracture ambulatory level in high surgical risk elderly patients sustained intertrochanteric fracture and treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) with and without cement augmentation. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Schuetze K, Ehinger S, Eickhoff A, et al. Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03531-2. [Online ahead of print]

  136. Xu K. Dual mobility Total hip arthroplasty versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty in treating patients with displaced femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2020; https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.4.0085.

  137. Guyen O. Hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty in recent femoral neck fractures? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(1):95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Florschutz AV, Langford JR, Haidukewych GJ, Koval KJ. Femoral neck fractures: current management. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):121–9.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Miller BJ, Callaghan JJ, Cram P, Karam M, Marsh JL, Noiseux NO. Changing trends in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic surgery database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):e149.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd. The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone. 1995;17(5):505–11.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Kannan A, Kancherla R, McMahon S, Hawdon G, Soral A, Malhotra R. Arthroplasty options in femoral-neck fracture: answers from the national registries. Int Orthop. 2012;36(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Pass B, et al. Differences of hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement in orthogeriatric treated elderly patients: a retrospective analysis of the registry for geriatric trauma DGU®. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01559-y.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  143. Quitmann H. Supercapsular percutaneously assisted (Superpath) approach in total hip arthroplasty – operative Orthopädie Und Traumatologie. SpringerLink, Springer Medizin; 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00064-019-0597-5

    Google Scholar 

  144. Tarwala R, Dorr LD. Robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty using the MAKO platform. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4:151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-011-9086-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Palm H. Hip fracture: the choice of surgery. In: Falaschi P, Marsh D, editors. Orthogeriatrics. Practical issues in geriatrics. Cham: Springer; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48126-1_9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Engineering, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA

    Emre Tokgöz

Authors
  1. Emre Tokgöz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tokgöz, E. (2023). Surgical Approach Comparisons in Total Hip Arthroplasty. In: Total Hip Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08927-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08927-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08926-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08927-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation