WHICH APPROACH FOR TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT?

Abstract

The optimal surgical approach for total hip replacement (THR) remains controversial. We report the clinical outcomes of over 1000 patients in the Exeter primary outcomes study (epos) who underwent primary THR with a cemented Exeter stem (Stryker) but with various acetabular components. This was a prospective non randomised multi centre study. Patient reported hip scores (oxford hip score (OHS)) were measured before operation and at 3 months (n= 1312), 1 (n=1276), 2 (n= 1225), 3 (n=1205) and 4 (n=975) years post operatively. Physician reported scores (Merle d’Aubigne / Postel, MDAP) were measured before operation and at 12 months. All of the operations were carried out using either the anterolateral (Hardinge or modification) or posterior approach.

The posterior approach gave better absolute OHS scores at 3 months and 1 year compared with the anterolateral approach. The improvement in OHS between the pre-op and relevant post-op score was better for the posterior than the Hardinge approach, and this extended to 4 years (all p< 0.05). Early dislocation rates were low in both groups. There was significantly more likely to be heterotopic ossification in the Hardinge group, while stem alignment into varus was more common in the posterior approach group. There was no significant difference between the two approaches as measured using the MDAP score at pre-op or at 12 months after surgery.

These results demonstrate that initial patient perceived clinical benefit of surgery is greater using a posterior than with an anterolateral approach. This should be considered when assessing the best approach for a particular patient. The current results emphasise the value of using patient based outcome measures, as the MDAP score did not detect a difference in outcomes between the two groups.