The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) was originally performed with a supine patient on a specialised traction table, but the approach can also be performed on a standard operating table. Despite cost and safety implications, there are few studies directly comparing these techniques and table choice remains largely surgeon preference. The purpose of this review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complication profiles of traction and standard table DAA for primary THA.
Methods:
The authors searched databases for relevant studies, screening in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using MINORS criteria or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data pertaining to patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and complications were abstracted.
Results:
Of 3085 initial titles, 44 studies containing a total 26,353 patients were included and analysed. Mean operative time was 70.9 ± 21.2 minutes for standard table (n = 4402) and 100.1 ± 32.6 minutes for traction table (n = 3518). Mean estimated blood loss was 382.3 ± 246.4 mL for standard (n = 2992) and 531.7 ± 364.3 mL for traction table (n = 2675). Intra-operative fracture rate was 1.3% for standard table (n = 3940) and 1.7% for traction table (n = 8386). Complication rates including revisions, dislocations and peri-prosthetic fractures were qualitatively similar between traction and standard table studies.
Conclusion:
Standard table and traction table DAA have similar outcomes and complications. Both techniques offer the short-term advantages of DAA when compared to other THA approaches. However, the standard table technique may offer perioperative advantages including decreased blood loss, shorter operative time, and fewer intraoperative fractures. In the context of rising global healthcare costs and lack of access to specialised orthopaedic traction tables, this review at minimum confirms the short-term safety of standard table DAA THA and prompts the need for future studies to directly compare these techniques.
JudetJJudetR. The use of an artificial femoral head for arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br1950; 32: 166–173.
2.
PostZDOrozcoFDiaz-LedezmaC, et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2014; 22: 595–603.
3.
RachbauerFKainMSHLeunigM. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am2009; 40: 311–320.
4.
Smith-PetersenMNLarsonCB. Complications of old fractures of the neck of the femur; results of treatment of vitallium-mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1947; 29: 41–48.
5.
BarrettWPTurnerSELeopoldJP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1634–1638.
6.
NakataKNishikawaMYamamotoK, et al. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 698–704.
7.
JewettBACollisDK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 503–507.
8.
MattaJMShahrdarCFergusonT. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 441: 115–124.
9.
WoolsonSTPouliotMAHuddlestonJI. Primary total hip arthroplasty using an anterior approach and a fracture table. Short-term results from a community hospital. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 999–1005.
10.
HartfordJMKnowlesSB. Risk factors for perioperative femoral fractures: cementless femoral implants and the direct anterior approach using a fracture table. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2013–2018.
11.
BarnettSLPetersDJHamiltonWG, et al. Is the anterior approach safe? Early complication rate associated with 5090 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed using the anterior approach. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2291–2294.
12.
SengBEBerendKRAjluniAF, et al. Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin North Am2009; 40: 342–350.
13.
KennonREKeggiJMWetmoreRS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85(Suppl. A): 39–48.
14.
BerendKRMirzaAJMorrisMJ, et al. Risk of periprosthetic fractures with direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2016. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.007.
15.
AllisonDCMenendezLRBrienWW, et al. “Table-less” and “Assistant-less” direct anterior approach to hip arthroplasty. Reconstructive Review2015; 5(3). DOI:10.15438/rr.5.3.122.
16.
CallaghanJJRosenbergAGRubashHE, et al. The adult hip: hip arthroplasty surgery. 3rd ed.New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
MeermansGKonanSDasR, et al. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B: 732–740.
19.
SlimKNiniEForestierD, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg2003; 73: 712–716.
20.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928.
21.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33: 159–174.
22.
Analytical Methods Committee. Robust statistics–how not to reject outliers. Part 1. Basic concepts. Analyst1989; 12: 1693–1697.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
25.
AltmanDGMachinDBryantTN, et al. Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. 2nd ed.London: BMJ, 2000.
26.
LecoanetPVargasMPallaroJ, et al. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: can leg length be satisfactorily controlled via anterior approach without a traction table? Evaluation in 56 patients with EOS 3D. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2018; 104: 1143–1148.
27.
AlecciVValenteMCrucilM, et al. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: Perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol2011; 12: 123–129.
28.
BrismarBHHallertOTedhamreA, et al. 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 Orthop2018; 89: 484–489.
29.
CortenKLeunigMMartyM. The learning curve complication rate of the direct anterior approach on a regular OR table is lower than the reported complication rate of the same approach on the traction table. European Hip Society meeting, 20–22 September 2012, Milano.
30.
EilanderWFaridAHogervorstT. The direct anterior approach THA; beyond the learning curve. Hip Int2018; 28(Suppl.): 48–49.
31.
FleischmanANRothmanRHParviziJ. Femoral nerve palsy following total hip arthroplasty: incidence and course of recovery. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1194–1199.
32.
FransenBHoozemansMVosS. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: one surgeon, two approaches. Acta Orthop Belg2016; 82: 240–248.
33.
GoebelSSteinertAFSchillingerJ, et al. Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop2012; 36: 491–498.
34.
KeggiKJHuoMHZatorskiLE. Anterior approach to total hip replacement: surgical technique and clinical results of our first one thousand cases using non-cemented prostheses. Yale J Biol Med1993; 66: 243–256.
35.
MjaalandKEKivleKSvenningsenS, et al. 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 Res2015; 33: 1305–1310.
36.
NistorDVCaterevSBolboacăSD, 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 Orthop2017; 41: 2245–2252.
37.
OinumaKEingartnerCSaitoY, et al. Total hip arthroplasty by a minimally invasive, direct anterior approach. Oper Orthop Traumatol2007; 19: 310–326.
38.
ParviziJRestrepoCMaltenfortMG. Total hip arthroplasty performed through direct anterior approach provides superior early outcome: results of a randomized, prospective study. Orthop Clin North Am2016; 47: 497–504.
39.
PonzioDYPoultsidesLASalvatoreA, et al. In-hospital morbidity and postoperative revisions after direct anterior vs posterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1421–1425.e1.
40.
RefaiHFKassemMS. The minimally invasive total hip replacement via the direct anterior approach: a short term clinical and radiological results. Alexandria Med J2014; 50: 31–36.
41.
ReichertJVolkmannMKoppmairM, et al. Comparative retrospective study of the direct anterior and transgluteal approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2015; 39: 2309–2313.
42.
RestrepoCParviziJPourAE, et al. Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 671–679.e1.
43.
RodriguezJADeshmukhAJRathodPA, et al. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach?Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 455–463.
44.
RussoMWMacdonellJRPaulusMC, et al. Increased complications in obese patients undergoing direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1384–1387.
45.
SteentjesKBeekhuizenSREilanderW, et al. The learning curve of the direct anterior approach without traction table in total hip replacement: using the LC-CUSUM method. J Hip Preserv Surg2019; 3: 41–47.
46.
VayalapraSAhmedULoftiN, et al. Direct anterior approach without traction table for total hip replacement -single surgeon learning curve. Hip Int2018; 28(Suppl.): 179–180.
47.
YoshiiHOinumaKTamakiT, et al. Comparison of patient satisfaction after unilateral or simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty through a direct anterior approach: evaluation using the Japanese orthopaedic association hip disease evaluation questionnaire. J Orthop Sci2016; 21: 332–335.
48.
ZawadskyMWPaulusMCMurrayPJ, et al. Early outcome comparison between the direct anterior approach and the mini-incision posterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: 150 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1256–1260.
49.
ZhaoHYKangPDXiaYY, et al. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3421–3428.
50.
BalasubramaniamUDowseyMMaF, et al. Functional and clinical outcomes following anterior hip replacement: a 5-year comparative study versus posterior approach. ANZ J Surg2016; 86: 589–593.
51.
Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty Collaborative Investigators, BhandariMMattaJM, et al. Outcomes following the single-incision anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter observational study. Orthop Clin North Am2009; 40: 329–342.
52.
ChengTEWallisJATaylorNF, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty-comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 883–890.
53.
ChristensenCPKarthikeyanTJacobsCA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1839–1841.
54.
D’ArrigoCSperanzaAMonacoE, et al. Learning curve in tissue sparing total hip replacement: comparison between different approaches. J Orthop Traumatol2009; 10: 47–54.
55.
De Anta-DíazBSerralta-GomisJLizaur-UtrillaA, et al. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop2016; 40: 2025–2030.
56.
De GeestTVansintjanPDe LooreG. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: complications and early outcome in a series of 300 cases. Acta Orthop Belg2013; 79: 166–173.
57.
HamiltonWGParksNLHuynhC. Comparison of cup alignment, jump distance, and complications in consecutive series of anterior approach and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1959–1962.
58.
IlchmannTGersbachSZwickyL, et al. Standard transgluteal versus minimal invasive anterior approach in hip arthroplasty: a prospective, consecutive cohort study. Orthop Rev (Pavia)2013; 5: e31.
59.
MasonisJThompsonCOdumS. Safe and accurate: learning the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics2008; 31(12Suppl 2): 1417–1426.
60.
RüdigerHABetzMZinggPO, et al. Outcome after proximal femoral fractures during primary total hip replacement by the direct anterior approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2013; 133: 569–573.
61.
SibiaUSTurnerTRMacDonaldJH, et al. The Impact of surgical technique on patient reported outcome measures and early complications after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 1171–1175.
62.
StoneAHSibiaUSAtkinsonR, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve when transitioning from posterolateral to direct anterior hip arthroplasty: a consecutive series of 1000 cases. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 2530–2534.
63.
TauntonMJTrousdaleRTSierraRJ, et al. John Charnley award: randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: which provides better functional recovery?Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 216–229.
64.
TissotCVautrinMLuyetA, et al. Are there more wound complications or infections with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty?Hip Int2018; 28: 591–598.
65.
VarinDLamontagneMBeauléPE. Does the anterior approach for THA provide closer-to-normal lower-limb motion?J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1401–1407.
66.
WardSRJonesRELongWT, et al. Functional recovery of muscles after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect2008; 57: 249–254.
67.
CohenEMVaughnJJRittermanSA, et al. Intraoperative femur fracture risk during primary direct anterior approach cementless total hip arthroplasty with and without a fracture table. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2847–2851.
68.
FlierlMAStahelPFHakDJ, et al. Traction table-related complications in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2010; 18: 668–675.
YoungS. Orthopaedic trauma surgery in low-income countries. Acta Orthop Suppl2014; 85: 1–35.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
