While previously considered unsuitable for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), the direct anterior approach (DAA) can be extended to allow for safe acetabular component revision. In primary hip arthroplasty, the DAA and its associated fluoroscopy, has been shown to produce more acceptable component positioning. However, there is little data comparing the DAA to the posterior approach (PA) for rTHA. We hypothesised that, the DAA with intraoperative fluoroscopy would allow for more precise acetabular component positioning when compared to those performed using a PA.
Methods:
50 consecutive patients (25 DAA and 25 PA) undergoing rTHA were included. Radiographic analysis of postoperative acetabular component position was then performed. Univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to assess the contribution of approach on cup positioning inside classically defined “safe zones”.
Results:
Baseline patient characteristics were similar. The PA was associated with more cups placed outside the Lewinnek (48% vs. 12%, p = 0.005) and the Danoff (52% vs. 28%, p = 0.083) “safe zones” when compared to the DAA. Multivariate analysis revealed that operative approach was the only patient or surgical factor associated with component position outside of the “safe zones” (Lewinnek [OR = 13.6; 95% CI, 2.12–87.9, p = 0.006] and Danoff [OR = 7.7; 95% CI, 1.48–40.1, p = 0.015]).
Conclusion:
Our results suggest that the DAA allows for more reproducible and precise cup placement in RTHA. The safe-zone paradigm remains a useful index of accurate cup positioning and the DAA, with use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, offers more consistent acetabular component positioning when compared to the PA.
KoenigLZhangQAustinMS, et al. Estimating the societal benefits of THA after accounting for work status and productivity: a Markov model approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 2645–2654.
2.
Maradit KremersHLarsonDRCrowsonCS, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am2015; 97: 1386–1397.
3.
KurtzSMLauEOngK, et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 260–2612.
4.
KurtzSOngKLauE, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 780–785.
5.
NhoSJKymesSMCallaghanJJ, et al. The burden of hip osteoarthritis in the United States: epidemiologic and economic considerations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2013; 21(Suppl. 1): S1–S6.
6.
RajaeeSSCampbellJCMirochaJ, et al. Increasing burden of total hip arthroplasty revisions in patients between 45 and 64 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 449–458.
7.
PostZDOrozcoFDiaz-LedezmaC, et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2014; 22: 595–603.
8.
MastersonELMasriBADuncanCP.Surgical approaches in revision hip replacement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg1998; 6: 84–92.
9.
KennonRKeggiJZatorskiLE, et al. Anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: beyond the minimally invasive technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004; 86(Suppl. 2): 91–97.
10.
NoglerMMThalerMR.The direct anterior approach for hip revision: accessing the entire femoral diaphysis without endangering the nerve supply. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 510–514.
11.
GhijselingsSGDriesenRSimonJP, et al. Distal extension of the direct anterior approach to the hip: a cadaveric feasibility study. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 300–303.
12.
GhijselingsSGMDriesenRSimonJP, et al. Distal extension of the anterior approach to the hip using the femoral interbundle technique: surgical technique and case series. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2186–2190.
13.
NoglerMMayrEKrismerM.[The direct anterior approach to the hip revision]. Oper Orthop Traumatol2012; 24: 153–164.
14.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrR, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
15.
BarrackRLKrempecJAClohisyJC, et al. Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 1760–1768.
16.
BiedermannRToninAKrismerM, et al. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87: 762–769.
17.
DanoffJRBobmanJTCunnG, et al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 506–511.
18.
GoyalPHowardJLYuanX, et al. Effect of acetabular position on polyethylene liner wear measured using simultaneous biplanar acquisition. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 1670–1674.
19.
GoyalPLauANaudieDD, et al. Effect of acetabular component positioning on functional outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 843–848.
20.
SadhuANamDCoobsBR, et al. Acetabular component position and the risk of dislocation following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 987–991.
21.
NakataKNishikawaMYamamotoK, et al. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 698–704.
22.
AbdelMPvon RothPJenningsMT, et al. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 386–391.
23.
DorrLDCallaghanJJ.Death of the Lewinnek “Safe Zone”. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 1–2.
24.
TezukaTHeckmannNDBodnerRJ, et al. Functional safe zone is superior to the Lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the Lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 3–8.
25.
MurphyWSYunHHHaydenB, et al. The Safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2018; 476: 325–335.
26.
LinTJBendichIHaAS, et al. A comparison of radiographic outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between the posterior approach and direct anterior approach with intraoperative fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 616–623.
27.
RathodPABhallaSDeshmukhAJ, et al. Does fluoroscopy with anterior hip arthroplasty decrease acetabular cup variability compared with a nonguided posterior approach?Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 1877–1885.
28.
PetisSHowardJLLantingBL, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg2015; 58: 128–139.
29.
OteroJEFehringKAMartinJR, et al. Variability of pelvic orientation in the lateral decubitus position: are external alignment guides trustworthy?J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3496–3501.
30.
LucasDHScottRD.The Ranawat sign- a specific maneuver to assess component positioning in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Tech1994; 2: 59–61.
31.
AlbertonGMHighWAMorreyBF.Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 1788–1792.
32.
KavanaghBFFitzgeraldRHJr.Multiple revisions for failed total hip arthroplasty not associated with infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am1987; 69: 1144–1149.
33.
KavanaghBFIlstrupDMFitzgeraldRHJr.Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1985; 67: 517–526.
34.
BohlDDSamuelAMBasquesBA, et al. How much do adverse event rates differ between primary and revision total joint arthroplasty?J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 596–602.
35.
BurroughsBRHallstromBGolladayGJ, et al. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty2005; 20: 11–19.
36.
GarbuzDSMasriBADuncanCP, et al. The Frank Stinchfield Award: dislocation in revision THA: do large heads (36 and 40 mm) result in reduced dislocation rates in a randomized clinical trial?Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 351–356.
37.
MerleCGrammatopoulosGWaldsteinW, et al. Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: e172.
38.
AnVVGPhanKSivakumarBS, et al. Prior lumbar spinal fusion is associated with an increased risk of dislocation and revision in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 297–300.
39.
BhaskarDRajpuraABoardT.Current concepts in acetabular positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop2017; 51: 386–396.
40.
BlizzardDJNickelBTSeylerTM, et al. The impact of lumbar spine disease and deformity on total hip arthroplasty outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am2016; 47: 19–28.
41.
BlizzardDJSheetsCZSeylerTM, et al. The impact of lumbar spine disease and deformity on total hip arthroplasty outcomes. Orthopedics2017; 40: e520–e525.
42.
DorrLDMalikADastaneM, et al. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 119–127.
43.
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.
44.
HartfordJMBellinoMJ.The learning curve for the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a single surgeon’s first 500 cases. Hip Int2017; 27: 483–488.
45.
DavisAMSchemitschEHGollishJD, et al. Classifying failed hip arthroplasty: generalizability of reliability and validity. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003: 171–179.
