Alexander J Acuña1, Michael T Do1, Linsen T Samuel1, Daniel Grits1, Jesse E Otero2, Atul F Kamath3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. OrthoCarolina Hip and Knee Center, 1915 Randolph Road, Charlotte, NC, 28207, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. kamatha@ccf.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes across the various surgical approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, high-quality contemporary data regarding periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk between direct anterior approach (DAA) and other (THA) approaches is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated PJI rates reported in the literature between the DAA and other approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five online databases were queried for all studies published from January 1st, 2000 through February 17th, 2021 that reported PJI rates between DAA and other surgical approaches. Studies reporting on primary THAs for osteoarthritis (OA) and that included PJI rates segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, alternative THA etiologies, or minimally invasive techniques were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilized to evaluate the pooled effect of surgical approach on infection rates. Validated risk of bias and methodological quality assessment tools were applied to each study. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of analyses. RESULTS: 28 articles reporting on 653,633 primary THAs were included. No differences were found between DAA cohorts and combined other approaches (OR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.21; p = 0.67) as well as segregated anterolateral approach cohorts (OR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06; p = 0.13). However, DAA patients had a significantly reduced risk of infection compared to those undergoing posterior (OR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.74; p < 0.0001) and direct lateral (OR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; p < 0.00001) approaches. CONCLUSION: The DAA to primary THA had comparable or lower PJI risk when compared to other contemporary approaches. The results of the most up-to-date evidence available serve to encourage adult reconstruction surgeons who have already adopted the DAA. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons considering adoption or use of the direct anterior approach for other reasons should not be dissuaded over theoretical concern for a general increase in the risk of PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
INTRODUCTION: Evidence demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes across the various surgical approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, high-quality contemporary data regarding periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk between direct anterior approach (DAA) and other (THA) approaches is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated PJI rates reported in the literature between the DAA and other approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five online databases were queried for all studies published from January 1st, 2000 through February 17th, 2021 that reported PJI rates between DAA and other surgical approaches. Studies reporting on primary THAs for osteoarthritis (OA) and that included PJI rates segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, alternative THA etiologies, or minimally invasive techniques were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilized to evaluate the pooled effect of surgical approach on infection rates. Validated risk of bias and methodological quality assessment tools were applied to each study. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of analyses. RESULTS: 28 articles reporting on 653,633 primary THAs were included. No differences were found between DAA cohorts and combined other approaches (OR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.21; p = 0.67) as well as segregated anterolateral approach cohorts (OR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06; p = 0.13). However, DAA patients had a significantly reduced risk of infection compared to those undergoing posterior (OR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.74; p < 0.0001) and direct lateral (OR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; p < 0.00001) approaches. CONCLUSION: The DAA to primary THA had comparable or lower PJI risk when compared to other contemporary approaches. The results of the most up-to-date evidence available serve to encourage adult reconstruction surgeons who have already adopted the DAA. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons considering adoption or use of the direct anterior approach for other reasons should not be dissuaded over theoretical concern for a general increase in the risk of PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: C E Marculescu; E F Berbari; A D Hanssen; J M Steckelberg; S W Harmsen; J N Mandrekar; D R Osmon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Bhaveen H Kapadia; Samik Banerjee; Jeffrey J Cherian; Kevin J Bozic; Michael A Mont Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Erik Lenguerrand; Michael R Whitehouse; Andrew D Beswick; Setor K Kunutsor; Ben Burston; Martyn Porter; Ashley W Blom Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Kirsty Garfield; Sian Noble; Erik Lenguerrand; Michael R Whitehouse; Adrian Sayers; Mike R Reed; Ashley W Blom Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 8.775