Literature DB >> 29439894

Early Failure of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is Surgical Approach a Risk Factor?

Marc R Angerame1, Thomas K Fehring2, John L Masonis2, J Bohannon Mason2, Susan M Odum3, Bryan D Springer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In an era of innovation in surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is concern for increasing trends of early failure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of early failure of primary THA stratified by surgical approach.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on consecutive primary THAs completed from 2007 to 2014 at a high-volume center. THAs were stratified by surgical approach. Only the direct anterior (DAA) and posterior approaches (PA) were included. The primary outcome measure was early revision (<5 years). Descriptive statistics were performed using SAS software.
RESULTS: In total, 6894 primary THAs performed between 2007 and 2014 were included. Across 2431 DAA THAs and 4463 PA THAs, there were 103 revisions overall. There was no difference in the overall revision rate for DAA THAs (1.69%) compared to PA THAs (1.39%) (P = .33). The DAA had a higher rate of early revisions for femoral component loosening compared to the PA (P = .0003). About 35.7% of DAA THAs were revised for femoral loosening compared to 8% for the PA (P = .0003). Early failure by femoral loosening occurred more often via the DAA in Dorr A bone (P = .03). The PA had a higher incidence of revision for instability (P = .04). There was no difference in modes of failure with regards to time to failure, acetabular loosening, early periprosthetic fracture, or infection.
CONCLUSION: The DAA had a higher incidence of femoral loosening while PA had a higher mode of failure due to instability. Overall revision rates were not statistically different between approaches.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aseptic loosening; direct anterior; failure; posterior approach; revision; total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29439894     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.014

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


  15 in total

1.  Acetabular defect management and revision arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach.

Authors:  Boris Michael Holzapfel; Kristoff Corten; Tyler Goldberg; Maximilian Rudert; Michael Nogler; Joseph Moskal; Martin Thaler
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 2.  Periprosthetic joint infection rates across primary total hip arthroplasty surgical approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 653,633 procedures.

Authors:  Alexander J Acuña; Michael T Do; Linsen T Samuel; Daniel Grits; Jesse E Otero; Atul F Kamath
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  A Crossover Cohort of Direct Anterior vs Posterolateral Approach in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Does the Patient Prefer?

Authors:  Evan B Rhea; Drew J Iman; Benjamin K Wilke; Courtney E Sherman; Cameron K Ledford; Kurt E Blasser
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-09-08

4.  Surgical automation reduces operating time while maintaining accuracy for direct anterior total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Aamir A Bhimani; James M Rizkalla; Kurt J Kitziger; Paul C Peters; Richard D Schubert; Brian P Gladnick
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-04-01

5.  Anterolateral minimally invasive hip approach offered faster rehabilitation with lower complication rates compared to the minimally invasive posterior hip approach-a University clinic case control study of 120 cases.

Authors:  Marko Ostojić; David Kordić; Goran Moro; Zdenko Ostojić
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  CORR Insights®: No Difference in Functional, Radiographic, and Survivorship Outcomes Between Direct Anterior or Posterior Approach THA: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Mark J Spangehl
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register.

Authors:  M F L Kuijpers; G Hannink; S B W Vehmeijer; L N van Steenbergen; B W Schreurs
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 8.  Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Setting of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Extreme Hip Flexion Requirements due to Phocomelia.

Authors:  Akshar H Patel; Stefan W Kreuzer; William F Sherman
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-02-23

9.  Triflange acetabular reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity through a direct anterior approach.

Authors:  Randle Ramsey; Randall Peyton; Ahmed Siddiqi; Nicole George
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-10-04

10.  Failure to Medically Optimize Before Total Hip Arthroplasty: Which Modifiable Risk Factor Is the Most Dangerous?

Authors:  Joseph M Statz; Susan M Odum; Nicholas R Johnson; Jesse E Otero
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-07-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.