Comparing THA anterior and posterior approaches for gluteus medius repair: outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up

Abstract

Introduction:

Previous reports have shown that addressing gluteus medius (GM) tears during total hip replacement (THA) provides favourable clinical outcomes compared to cases without GM repair. However, there is limited discussion in the literature regarding the relationship between the direct anterior approach (DAA) or posterior approach (PA) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when performing GM repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes and survivorship between patients undergoing GM repair during DAA THA versus PA THA.

Methods:

Data from patients undergoing THA between April 2010 and December 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. Included patients had preoperative and 2-year follow-up data for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement HOOS-JR), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), visual analogue scale (VAS) and patient satisfaction or a documented endpoint (revision surgery). Patients were divided by the approach used during the THA, DAA or PA, and then matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, BMI, follow-up time, and the thickness of the GM tear (<50% thickness, >50% thickness, full thickness).

Results:

26 hips in the DAA cohort were matched with 26 hips in the PA cohort. There were no significant differences in demographics, the composition and distribution of GM tears, and the use of robotic assistance between the cohorts. Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvement across all PROs (p < 0.01) while also yielding comparable postoperative PROs (p > 0.05), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS, p = 0.72), patient satisfaction (p = 0.56), rates of achieving clinically relevant thresholds (p > 0.05), and rates of revision surgery (p > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing THA with concomitant GM repair via either the DAA or PA demonstrated favourable functional outcomes, with a high percentage achieving clinically-relevant thresholds. Both approaches resulted in comparable levels of clinical improvement and short-term survivorship.

Keywords

Concomitant gluteus medius repair direct anterior approach patient-reported outcomes posterior approach total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chandrasekaran

Vemula

Gui

, et al. Clinical features that predict the need for operative intervention in gluteus medius tears. Orthop J Sports Med 2015; 3: 2325967115571079.

Zhu

Musson

Cornish

, et al. Hip abductor tendon tears: where are we now? Hip Int 2020; 30: 500–512.

Rudisill

Clark

Nagelli

, et al. Outcomes of direct anterior total hip arthroplasty in patients who have preoperative gluteal tendinopathy and muscle tears: a propensity-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 2025; 40: 1758–1765.

Maldonado

Kyin

Diulus

, et al. Modern suture anchor techniques for gluteus medius tear repair with concomitant total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior and posterior approaches. Orthopedics 2021; 44: e653–e660.

Groot

Van Ooij

Haverkamp

, et al. Repair of gluteus medius muscle avulsion following transgluteal hip replacement. Hip Int 2011; 21: 284–287.

Maldonado

Diulus

Meghpara

, et al. Repair of symptomatic partial gluteus medius tear during total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior approach. Arthrosc Tech 2021; 10: e575–e580.

Post

Orozco

Diaz-Ledezma

, et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22: 595–603.

Rykov

Meys

TWGM

Knobben

BAS

, et al. MRI assessment of muscle damage after the posterolateral versus direct anterior approach for THA (Polada Trial). A randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36: 3248–3258.e1.

Rice

Browning

Fenn

, et al. Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at 2 years following open gluteus medius and/or minimus repair. J Hip Preserv Surg 2024; 11: 92–97.

10.

Norman

Sloan

Wyrwich

KW.

Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582–592.

11.

Singh

Bieganowski

Huang

, et al. The Forgotten Joint Score patient-acceptable symptom state following primary total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open 2022; 3: 307–313.

12.

Rees

HW.

Management of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28: e288–e291.

13.

Katz

Arant

Loeser

RF.

Diagnosis and treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a review. JAMA 2021; 325: 568–578.

14.

Kolasinski

Neogi

Hochberg

, et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res 2020; 72: 149–162.

15.

Hunter

Bierma-Zeinstra

Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019; 393: 1745–1759.

16.

Naqvi

Margetis

Sherman

. Muscle Strength Grading. 2025 Apr 27. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–. PMID: 28613779.

17.

Weber

Woerner

Springorum

, et al. Fluoroscopy and Imageless navigation enable an equivalent reconstruction of leg length and global and femoral offset in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 3150–3158.

18.

Domb

Chen

Lall

, et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of robotic-assisted primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score–matched study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28: 847–856.

19.

Maldonado

Kyin

Walker-Santiago

, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip replacement: comparison of minimum 2-year outcomes. Hip Int 2021; 31: 166–173.

20.

Hartigan

Mansor

Perets

, et al. Knotless “Suture Staple” technique for endoscopic partial thickness abductor tendon repair. Arthrosc Tech 2018; 7: e975–980.

21.

Domb

Carreira

DS.

Endoscopic repair of full-thickness gluteus medius tears. Arthrosc Tech 2013; 2: e77–e81.

22.

Merrill

Fleisig

Arceo

, et al. Endoscopic gluteus medius repair. Arthrosc Tech 2022; 11: e1787–e1791.

23.

Rosinsky

Bheem

Meghpara

, et al. Asymptomatic gluteal tendinopathies negatively impact outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36: 242–249.

24.

Maldonado

Glein

Annin

, et al. Outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty with concomitant gluteus medius repair using the direct anterior approach. Orthopedics 2023; 46: 39–46.

25.

Betz

Zingg

Hirschmann

, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with incomplete hip abductor tears: does hip abductor repair improve outcome? Hip Int 2014; 24: 399–404.

26.

Whiteside

Roy

ME.

Incidence and treatment of abductor deficiency during total hip arthroplasty using the posterior approach: repair with direct suture technique and gluteus maximus flap transfer. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. B): 116–122.

27.

Fujita

Kabata

Kajino

, et al. Optimizing leg length correction in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2020; 44: 437–443.