Literature DB >> 27612607

A Comparison of Radiographic Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty Between the Posterior Approach and Direct Anterior Approach With Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.

Timothy J Lin1, Ilya Bendich2, Alex S Ha2, Benjamin J Keeney3, Wayne E Moschetti3, Ivan M Tomek3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radiographic outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been linked to clinical outcomes. The direct anterior approach (DAA) for THA has been criticized by some for providing limited exposure and compromised implant position but allows for routine use of intraoperative fluoroscopy. We sought to determine whether radiographic measurements differed by THA approach using prospective cohorts.
METHODS: Two reviewers blinded to surgical approach examined 194 radiographs, obtained 4-6 weeks after primary THA, and obtained measurements for acetabular inclination angle, acetabular anteversion, radiographic limb length discrepancy (LLD), and femoral offset. All surgeries were performed at a tertiary academic medical center in rural New England by an experienced fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon. Measurements for inclination angle, anteversion, LLD, and offset were made into binary yes/no responses based on whether the mean measurement (between the 2 reviewers) was acceptable or not based on established criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed using preoperative and intraoperative characteristics to identify predictors of acceptability for each measurement.
RESULTS: The DAA group had higher rates of acceptable acetabular angle (96 vs 85%, P = .005) and was protective against an unacceptable angle in an adjusted predictive model (odds ratios 0.16, P = .005). There were no significant differences between approaches for acceptable anteversion, LLD, or offset. Body mass index of 30-34 was associated with higher odds of unacceptable inclination angle compared to the nonobese group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.82, P = .013).
CONCLUSION: DAA for THA was associated with lower odds of unacceptable inclination angle compared to the posterior approach, with no differences in anteversion, LLD, or offset.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acetabular inclination angle; direct anterior approach; posterior approach; radiographic outcomes; total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27612607      PMCID: PMC5258737          DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  28 in total

Review 1.  Complications of the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cefin Barton; Paul R Kim
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.472

2.  The history of the anterior approach to the hip.

Authors:  Franz Rachbauer; Michael S H Kain; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties.

Authors:  G E Lewinnek; J L Lewis; R Tarr; C L Compere; J R Zimmerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table.

Authors:  Joel M Matta; Cambize Shahrdar; Tania Ferguson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Does fluoroscopy improve acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Brandon S Beamer; Jordan H Morgan; Christopher Barr; Michael J Weaver; Mark S Vrahas
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Learning curve for the anterior approach total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robin N Goytia; Lynne C Jones; Marc W Hungerford
Journal:  J Surg Orthop Adv       Date:  2012

7.  High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table.

Authors:  Brian A Jewett; Dennis K Collis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Early complications of primary total hip replacement performed with a two-incision minimally invasive technique. Surgical technique.

Authors:  B Sonny Bal; Doug Haltom; Thomas Aleto; Matthew Barrett
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A war on obesity, not the obese.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Friedman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-02-07       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset.

Authors:  Nick J Little; Constant A Busch; John A Gallagher; Cecil H Rorabeck; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-02       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  17 in total

1.  A new method for intraoperative assessment of leg length, sizing and placement of the components in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Ioannis P Stathopoulos; Nicolaos Andrianopoulos; Dimitrios Paschaloglou; Kalliopi Lampropoulou-Adamidou; Maria Spetsaki; Ioannis K Tsarouchas
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-01-02

2.  Acetabular and Femoral Component Positioning Using Direct Anterior Approach Versus Posterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tarun Goyal; Arghya Kundu Choudhury; Souvik Paul; Tushar Gupta; Lakshmana Das
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 1.251

3.  Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip arthroplasty versus conventional posterior approach: Comparison of early functional results.

Authors:  Heng Jiang; Li-Hong Wang; Yong-Xin Jin; Zhi-Ming Liu; Liang-Feng Xu; Xian-Yun Chen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.511

4.  Comparison of direct anterior approach and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: More than 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Takahito Yuasa; Kohei Aoki; Motoshi Gomi; Kohei Shiota
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-03-29

5.  Direct anterior versus mini-anterolateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: early postoperative outcomes and complications.

Authors:  Carl L Herndon; Nathan Drummond; Nana O Sarpong; H John Cooper; Roshan P Shah; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-03-31

6.  A comparison of radiographic leg-length and offset discrepancies between 2 intraoperative measurement techniques in anterior total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel C Austin; Brendan E Dempsey; Samuel T Kunkel; Michael T Torchia; David S Jevsevar
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2018-10-22

7.  Component placement accuracy of two digital intraoperative fluoroscopy supplementation systems in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tyler Thorne; Scott Nishioka; Samantha Andrews; Kristin Mathews; Cass Nakasone
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Do Patients With Higher Preoperative Functional Outcome Scores Preferentially Seek Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Wayne E Moschetti; Samuel Kunkel; Benjamin J Keeney; David Jevsevar
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-06-22

9.  Total hip arthroplasty through an anterior approach: The pros and cons.

Authors:  Georgios Kyriakopoulos; Lazaros Poultsides; Panayiotis Christofilopoulos
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-11-01

10.  Does the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy improve postoperative radiographic component positioning and implant size in total hip arthroplasty utilizing a direct anterior approach?

Authors:  David C Holst; Daniel L Levy; Marc R Angerame; Charlie C Yang
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-12-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.