ORTHOPEDICS AND TRAUMATOLOGY / CLINICAL RESEARCH
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in orthopedics. The most commonly employed approaches are the posterolateral approach (PLA) and the lateral approach. Minimally invasive techniques such as direct anterior approach (DAA) and minimal invasive surgery direct anterior approach (MIS DAA) are used more and more often. The aim of the study was to compare the two approaches DAA and PLA in terms of length of stay, economic outcomes, quality of life, hip joint function and hip joint awareness.

Material and methods:
The study was performed as a retrospective analysis of 52 cementless total hip arthroplasty procedures performed by MIS DAA and 56 cementless THA performed by classic standard PLA. The evaluation of hip joint awareness, quality of life, hip joint fitness assessment and economic indicators were evaluated.

Results:
The mean duration of the anterior approach procedure (48.96 min) was found to be around half that of the posterior approach (102.52 min) (Levene’s test: F = 2.37; p > 0.005). The mean durations of the two types of approaches were found to be significantly different (Student’s t test: t (106) = –16.15; p < 0.005). The shorter mean duration of stay and shorter procedure duration associated with the anterior approach result in mean savings of PLN 5465.96 per procedure.

Conclusions:
The MIS DAA procedure is a safe and less traumatizing surgical approach for hip arthroplasty which allows faster post-operative primary mobilization, shorter procedure time and sooner discharge from hospital than standard PLA. Significant reduction in costs of hospitalization was observed in the MIS DAA procedure.
REFERENCES (37)
1.
Molina CS, Thakore RV, Blumer A, Obremskey WT, Sethi MK. Use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 1574-81.
 
2.
Felson DT, Zhang Y. An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 1343-55.
 
3.
Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the national inpatient sample.
 
4.
National and regional estimates on hospital use for all patients from the HCUP nationwide inpatient sample (NIS). National statistics – principle procedure only. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUPnet2011.
 
5.
Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 1323-30.
 
6.
Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 1392-8.
 
7.
Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 419-34.
 
8.
Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Seng BE, Adams JB. Enhanced early outcomes with the anterior supine intermuscular approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 Suppl 6: 107-20.
 
9.
Alecci V, Valente M, Crucil M, Minerva M, Pellegrino CM, Sabbadini DD. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol 2011; 12: 123-9.
 
10.
Goebel S, Steinert AF, Schillinger J, et al. Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop 2012; 36: 491-8.
 
11.
Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 1634-8.
 
12.
Lee SH, Kang SW, Jo S. Perioperative comparison of hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach with the posterolateral approach. Hip Pelvis 2017; 29: 240-6.
 
13.
Skowronek P, Wypniewski K, Zalewski A, Sibiński M, Polguj M. Time efficiency of direct anterior hip arthroplasty compared to postero-lateral approach. Arch Med Sci [In press].
 
14.
Wenz JF, Gurkan I, Jibodh SR. Mini-incision total hip arthroplasty: a comparative assessment of perioperative outcomes. Orthopedics 2002; 25: 1031-43.
 
15.
Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE, Huo MH, Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A Suppl 4: 39-48.
 
16.
Sariali E, Leonard P, Mamoudy P. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty using Hueter anterior approach. J Arthro­plasty 2008; 23: 266-72.
 
17.
Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C, Hozack WJ, Ong A. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22: 595-603.
 
18.
Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B. Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004: 164-73.
 
19.
Matta JM, Shahrdar C, Ferguson T. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 115-24.
 
20.
Van Den Eeden YNT, De Turck BJG, Van Den Eeden FMC. 24 hours stay after hip replacement. Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 24-8.
 
21.
Clarke A, Rowe P, Black N. Does a shorter length of hospital stay affect the outcome and costs of hysterectomy in southern England? J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50: 545-50.
 
22.
Husted H, Otte KS, Kristensen BB, Orsnes T, Wong C, Kehlet H. Low risk of thromboembolic complications after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 599-605.
 
23.
Ruth Lewis NE. Improving length of stay: what can hospitals do? Nuffield Trust; 2015.
 
24.
Scottish Arthroplasty Project Annual Report; 2018. p. 30-3.
 
25.
Husted H, Holm G, Jacobsen S. Predictors of length of stay and patient satisfaction after hip and knee replacement surgery: fast-track experience in 712 patients. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 168-73.
 
26.
Larsen K, Hansen TB, Soballe K. Hip arthroplasty patients benefit from accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation: a quasi-experimental study of 98 patients. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 624-30.
 
27.
Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 1710-5.
 
28.
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (8 Suppl): 61-5.e1.
 
29.
Grosse SD, Nelson RE, Nyarko KA, Richardson LC, Raskob GE. The economic burden of incident venous thromboembolism in the United States: a review of estimated attributable healthcare costs. Thromb Res 2016; 137: 3-10.
 
30.
Puhto T, Puhto AP, Vielma M, Syrjala H. Infection triples the cost of a primary joint arthroplasty. Infect Dis (Lond) 2019; 51: 348-55.
 
31.
Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1839-41.
 
32.
Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (9 Suppl): 169-72.
 
33.
Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH, 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.
 
34.
Lazic S, Boughton O, Kellett CF, Kader DF, Villet L, Rivière C. Day-case surgery for total hip and knee replacement: how safe and effective is it? EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3: 130-5.
 
35.
Brunenberg DE, van Steyn MJ, Sluimer JC, Bekebrede LL, Bulstra SK, Joore MA. Joint recovery programme versus usual care: an economic evaluation of a clinical pathway for joint replacement surgery. Med Care 2005; 43: 1018-26.
 
36.
Hip replacements: an update Seventeenth Report of Session. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts; 2003-04.
 
37.
Fernandez MM, Hogue S, Preblick R, Kwong WJ. Review of the cost of venous thromboembolism. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2015; 7: 451-62.
 
eISSN:1896-9151
ISSN:1734-1922
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top