Comparative analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: evaluating minimum 5-year outcomes and clinical important thresholds
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2026
Comparative analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: evaluating minimum 5-year outcomes and clinical important thresholds
In total hip arthroplasty (THA), the direct anterior approach (DAA) has gained popularity due to reported superior early outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the DAA and PA in patients undergoing primary THA at midterm follow-up, with a secondary comprehensive analysis of the clinically important thresholds.
Methods:
Data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent a primary THA from 2009 to 2018. Patients were included if they had completed postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at a minimum of 5-year follow-up or had a documented endpoint. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the approach and propensity-matched 1:1 based on age, use of robotic assistance, sex, and body mass index. The analysis also included comparisons of clinically significant thresholds, complications, and revision rates.
Results:
176 hips were matched in each group. Both the DAA and PA groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement across all PROs from the preoperative baseline to the midterm follow-up time point. Both groups also demonstrated comparable midterm outcomes across all PROs. Comparable (p > 0.05) rates of achieving PASS and MCID were observed. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the PA group (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Both groups reported positive outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Both groups achieved comparable midterm outcomes across all PROs and reached clinically significant thresholds at comparable rates. Moreover, the DAA group faced a lower risk for complications, which should be taken into consideration when deciding on a surgical approach.
KatzJNArantKRLoeserRF.Diagnosis and treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a review. JAMA2021; 325: 568–578.
2.
ReesHW.Management of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2020; 28: e288–e291.
3.
GengXLiYLiF, et alA new 3D printing porous trabecular titanium metal acetabular cup for primary total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up of 92 consecutive patients. J Orthop Surg Res2020; 15: 383.
4.
FontalisAEpinetteJAThalerM, et alAdvances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty. SICOT-J2021; 7: 26.
5.
KumarPVatsyaPRajnishRK, et alApplication of 3D printing in hip and knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Indian J Orthop2020; 55(Suppl. 1): 14–26.
6.
SuganoN.Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery and robotic surgery in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg2013; 5: 1–9.
7.
KubotaYKakuNTabataT, et alEfficacy of computed tomography-based navigation for cup placement in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg2019; 11: 43–51.
8.
KarachaliosTBerstockJR. Innovations in hip surgery: over the last 30 years. Hip Int2022; 32: 708–710.
9.
LuHXiaoQXuH, et alRobotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty for preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making. J Orthop Surg Res2023; 18: 608.
10.
AngJJMOnggoJRStokesCM, et alComparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2023; 33: 2773–2792.
11.
LazaruPBueschgesSRamadanovN.Direct anterior approach (DAA) vs. conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a RCT meta-analysis with an overview of related meta-analyses. PLoS ONE2021; 16: e0255888.
12.
GulbrandsenTRMufflySAShamrockA, et alTotal hip arthroplasty: direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in the first year of practice. Iowa Orthop J2022; 42: 127–136.
13.
SinghVBieganowskiTHuangS, et alThe Forgotten Joint Score patient-acceptable symptom state following primary total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open2022; 3: 307–313.
14.
WangZBaoHHouJ, et alThe direct anterior approach versus the posterolateral approach on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective clinical study. Orthop Surg2022; 14: 2563–2570.
15.
ReichertJCVon RottkayERothF, et alA prospective randomized comparison of the minimally invasive direct anterior and the transgluteal approach for primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2018; 19: 241.
16.
HaynesJAHopperRHHoH, et alDirect anterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty lowers the risk of dislocation compared to the posterior approach: a single institution experience. J Arthroplasty2022; 37: 495–500.
17.
MaldonadoDRKyinCWalker-SantiagoR, et alDirect anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip replacement: comparison of minimum 2-year outcomes. Hip Int2021; 31: 166–173.
18.
VavkenPHeinrichKMKoppelhuberC, et alThe use of confidence intervals in reporting orthopaedic research findings. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 3334–3339.
19.
TubachF.Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis2005; 64: 34–37.
20.
JevsevarDSSandersJBozicKJ, et alAn introduction to clinical significance in orthopaedic outcomes research. JBJS Rev2015; 3: e2.
21.
BijlsmaJWBerenbaumFLafeberFP.Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet2011; 377: 2115–2126.
HornePHOlsonSA.Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty using the fracture table. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2011; 4: 139–145.
24.
PostZDOrozcoFDiaz-LedezmaC, et alDirect anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2014; 22: 595–603.
25.
PerazziniPTrevisanMSembeniniP, et alThe MakoTM robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach: surgical technique, skills and pitfals. Acta Biomed2020; 91: 21–30.
26.
NormanGRSloanJAWyrwichKW.Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care2003; 41: 582–592.
27.
GaleaVPFlorissiIRojanasopondistP, et alThe patient acceptable symptom state for the Harris hip score following total hip arthroplasty: validated thresholds at 3-month, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 145–152.e2.
28.
KunzeKNFontanaMAMacLeanCH, et alDefining the patient acceptable symptom state for the HOOS JR and KOOS JR after primary total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2022; 104: 345–352.
29.
PeretsIRybalkoDChaharbakhshiEO, et alMinimum five-year outcomes of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears in patients with obesity: a match-controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 965–973.
30.
FinchDJMartinBIFranklinPD, et alPatient-reported outcomes following total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter comparison based on surgical approaches. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 1029–1035.e3.
31.
BarrettWPTurnerSEMurphyJA, et alProspective, randomized study of direct anterior approach vs posterolateral approach total hip arthroplasty: a concise 5-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 1139–1142.
32.
VasireddiNChandiSKNeitzkeCC, et alDoes approach matter in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty? A comparison of early reoperations between direct anterior and postero-lateral approach. J Arthroplasty2024; 39: 1765–1770.
33.
GötzJSBenditzAReinhardJ, et alInfluence of anxiety/depression, age, gender and ASA on 1-year follow-up outcomes following total hip and knee arthroplasty in 5447 patients. J Clin Med2021; 10: 3095.
34.
BenditzAJansenPSchaibleJ, et alPsychological factors as risk factors for poor hip function after total hip arthroplasty. Ther Clin Risk Manag2017; 13: 237–244.
35.
MartinJRMasonisJLMasonJB.Anatomic total hip component position is more reproducible with the direct anterior approach using intraoperative fluoroscopy. Arthroplast Today2020; 6: 777–783.
36.
KahhalehECharlesTCollardX, et alA low dislocation rate after revision total hip arthroplasty performed through the anterior approach. Arthroplasty2023; 5: 4.
37.
FritzJKWaddellBSKitzigerKJ, et alIs dislocation risk due to posterior pelvic tilt reduced with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty?J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 3692–3696.
38.
JacksonJBMartinJRChristalA, et alThe direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty reliably achieves “safe zones” for combined anteversion. Arthroplast Today2020; 6: 651–654.
39.
KunzeKNHuddlestonHPRomeroJ, et alAccuracy and precision of acetabular component position does not differ between the anterior and posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty with robotic assistance: a matched-pair analysis. Arthroplast Today2022; 18: 68–75.
40.
ZawadskyMWPaulusMCMurrayPJ, et alEarly 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.
