Anterior approach to hip replacement and associated complications: an independent review

Abstract

Background:

Direct anterior approach (DAA) to hip replacement is increasingly popular. Despite the well-published benefits of early recovery, the approach can be associated with a number of complications that may be underreported. We aim to report the incidence of some of these complications in a large retrospective case series.

Methods:

270 consecutive DAA hip replacements are studied which are performed by a single high-volume hip surgeon from 2013 to 2015, not including the surgeon’s learning curve. Operation and consultation records were screened, and focused questioning via telephone was employed to capture specific complications including dislocations, wound infections, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) injury and revision surgery.

Results:

240 of 270 patients or family were contactable. The mean age and body mass index of the cohort was 66 (range 30–89) years and 27 (range 18–40) kg/m² respectively. The mean follow-up was 3.7 years. Wound issues were encountered in 24 patients (8.8%). There were 9 dislocations (3%). 27 (10%) patients needed revision surgery in the follow-up period. Reasons for revision included leg-length discrepancies, dislocations, ongoing pain and aseptic loosening. 9 (3.4%) patients had to return to operating theatre for reasons other than revision surgery. Symptoms of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury was reported by 54 patients (21%).

Conclusions:

While the short-term benefits of DAA have been widely reported, our review shows a relatively high rate of revision surgery. We feel that the enthusiasm for DAA should be tempered until further evidence is available.

Keywords

Complications direct anterior approach revision surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Yue

Kang

Pei

Comparison of direct anterior and lateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e2126.

Cheng

Wallis

Taylor

, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty-comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 883–890.

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2019 annual report. Australian Orthopaedic Association, Adelaide, 2019.

Kurtz

Lau

Ong

, et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 2606–2612.

Jewett

Collis

DK.

High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 503–507.

Rachbauer

Kain

MSH

Leunig

The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 2009; 40: 311–320.

Wang

Hou

J-Z

C-H

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13: 229.

Nakata

Nishikawa

Yamamoto

, et al. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 698–704.

Zawadsky

Paulus

Murray

, 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 Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1256–1260.

10.

Kyriakopoulos

Poultsides

Christofilopoulos

Total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach: the pros and cons. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3: 574–583.

11.

Leunig

Hutmacher

Ricciardi

, et al. Skin crease ‘bikini’ incision for the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a two- to four-year comparative study in 964 patients. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B: 853–861.

12.

Ozaki

Baba

Homma

, et al. Posterior versus direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12. SICOT J 2018; 4: 54.

13.

Balasubramaniam

Dowsey

, et al. Functional and clinical outcomes following anterior hip replacement: a 5-year comparative study versus posterior approach. ANZ J Surg 2016; 86: 589–593.

14.

Shofoluwe

Naveen

Inabathula

, et al. Internet promotion of direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty by members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 167–170.e1.

15.

Patel

Shah

Erens

GA.

Current trends in clinical practice for the direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 1987–1993.e3.

16.

Bhargava

Goytia

Jones

, et al. Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve impairment after direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2010; 33: 472.

17.

Christensen

Karthikeyan

Jacobs

CA.

Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1839–1841.

18.

Aggarwal

Elbuluk

Dundon

, et al. Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B: 646–651.

19.

Eto

Hwang

Huddleston

, et al. The direct anterior approach is associated with early revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1001–1005.

20.

Parvizi

Zmistowski

Berbari

, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2992–2994.

21.

Dawson

Fitzpatrick

Carr

, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185–190.

22.

Ware

Jr Kosinski

Keller

SD.

A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34: 220–233.

23.

Matta

Shahrdar

Ferguson

Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 115–124.

24.

Kagan

Peters

Pelt

, et al. Complications and pitfalls of direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Ann Joint 2018; 3.

25.

Rudin

Manestar

Ullrich

, et al. The anatomical course of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with special attention to the anterior approach to the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 561–567.

26.

Tomaszewski

Popieluszko

Henry

, et al. The surgical anatomy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve in the inguinal region: a meta-analysis. Hernia 2016; 20: 649–657.

27.

Mjaaland

Svenningsen

Fenstad

, et al. Implant survival after minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral vs. conventional posterior or direct lateral approach: an analysis of 21,860 total hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2008 to 2013). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 840–847.

28.

Charney

Paxton

Stradiotto

, et al. A comparison of risk of dislocation and cause-specific revision between direct anterior and posterior approach following elective cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1651–1657.

29.

Martusiewicz

Delagrammaticas

Harold

, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: patient-reported and functional outcomes in the early postoperative period. Hip Int. Epub ahead of print 6 October 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019881413.

30.

Taunton

Trousdale

Sierra

, 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: 216–229.