Comparison of periprosthetic joint infection rates in the direct anterior approach and non-anterior approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication and devastating mode of failure of total hip arthroplasty. Various surgical approaches exist for total hip arthroplasty, including the increasingly popularised direct anterior approach. There is no clear consensus on which approach is least associated with periprosthetic joint infection. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of periprosthetic joint infection between surgical approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.

Methods:

A search of 3 electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for relevant studies up to June 2020 with a defined list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies reporting periprosthetic joint infection rates after primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were included based on surgical approach. Data extraction was completed, and a meta-analysis was then performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

Results:

A total of 24,407 hips were included for meta-analysis with an overall PJI incidence of 0.57%. The incidence rate for periprosthetic joint infection was 0.77% in the direct anterior approach group and 0.44% in the non-anterior approach group. The use of an anterior approach for a total hip arthroplasty was associated with an increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection (odds ratio = 1.404; 95% confidence interval, 0.711–2.771; p = 0.03).

Conclusions:

The direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty may be associated with a significantly increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection compared to non-anterior approaches, even though the overall rate was still small. This should be considered by orthopedic surgeons when choosing the surgical approach.

Keywords

Prosthetic joint infection hip replacement direct anterior approach infection total hip arthroplasty meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Petis

Howard

Lanting

, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg 2015; 58: 128–139.

Foran

Valle

. Posterolateral approach to the hip. In: Nho

Leunig

Kelly

, et al. (eds.) Hip arthroscopy and hip joint preservation surgery. New York, NY: Springer, 2013.

Kelmanovich

Parks

Sinha

, et al. Surgical approaches to total hip arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc 2003; 12: 90–94.

Patel

Shah

Erens

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

Bender

Nogler

Hozack

. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2009; 40: 321–328.

Hoppenfeld

deBoer

. Surgical exposures in orthopaedics: the anatomic approach. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.

Palan

Beard

Murray

, et al. Which approach for total hip arthroplasty: anterolateral or posterior? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 473–477.

Mulliken

Rorabeck

Bourne

, et al. A modified direct lateral approach hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 737–747.

Alijanipour

Patel

Naik

, et al. Heterotopic ossification in primary total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior vs direct lateral approach. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1323–1327.

10.

Singh

Chen

, et al. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020-2040 using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46: 1134–1140.

11.

Whitehouse

Parry

Konan

, et al. Deep infection after hip arthroplasty: staying current with change. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B(Suppl. A): 27–30.

12.

Beringer

. CORR insights®: what is the long-term economic societal effect of periprosthetic infections after THA? A Markov analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 1901–1903.

13.

Pincus

Jenkinson

Paterson

, et al. Association between surgical approach and major surgical complications in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. JAMA 2020; 323: 1070–1076.

14.

Siljander

Whaley

Koueiter

, et al. Length of stay, discharge disposition, and 90-day complications and revisions following primary total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the direct anterior, posterolateral, and direct superior approaches. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1658–1661.

15.

Aggarwal

Weintraub

Klock

, et al. 2019 Frank Stinchfield award: a comparison of prosthetic joint infection rates between direct anterior and non-anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. B): 2–8.

16.

Angerame

Fehring

Masonis

, et al. Early failure of primary total hip arthroplasty: is surgical approach a risk factor? J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1780–1785.

17.

Brismar

Hallert

Tedhamre

, 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 Orthop 2018; 89: 484–489.

18.

Kennon

Keggi

Wetmore

, et al. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A(Suppl. 4): 39–48.

19.

Goulding

Beaulé

Kim

, et al. Incidence of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve neuropraxia after anterior approach hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2397–2404.

20.

Ha’eri

Wiley

. Total hip replacement in a laminar flow environment with special reference to deep infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980; 148: 163–168.

21.

Sali

Marmorat

Gaudot

, et al. Perioperative complications and causes of 30- and 90-day readmission after direct anterior approach primary total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop 2019; 17: 69–72.

22.

Jahng

Bas

Rodriguez

, et al. Risk factors for wound complications after direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 2583–2587.

23.

Poehling-Monaghan

Kamath

Taunton

, et al. Direction anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 623–631.

24.

Ilchmann

Zimmerli

Bolliger

, et al. Risk of infection in primary, elective total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach: a prospective cohort study of 1104 hips. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 471–476.

25.

Smith

Framptom

Hooper

, et al. The impact of patient and surgical factors on the rate of postoperative infection after total hip arthroplasty – a New Zealand joint registry study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1884–1890.

26.

Sheth

Cafri

Inacio

, et al. Anterior and anterolateral approaches for THA are associated with lower dislocation risk without higher revision risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3401–3408.