Abstract
The Posterior and Lateral approaches are most commonly used for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the United Kingdom (UK). Fewer than 5% of UK surgeons routinely use the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA). DAA THA is increasing, particularly among surgeons who have learned the technique during overseas fellowships. Whether DAA offers long-term clinical benefit is unclear.
We undertook a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected 10-year, multi-surgeon, multi-centre implant surveillance study data for matched cohorts of patients whose operations were undertaken by either the DAA or posterior approach. All operations were undertaken using uncemented femoral and acetabular components. The implants were different for the two surgical approaches. We report the pre-operative, and post operative six-month, two-year, five-year and 10-year Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and 10-year revision rates.
125 patients underwent DAA THA; these patients were matched against those undergoing the posterior approach through propensity score matching for age, gender and body mass index. The 10-year revision rate for DAA THA was 3.2% (4/125) and 2.4% (3/125) for posterior THA. The difference in revision rate was not statistically significant. Both DAA and Posterior THA pre-operative OHS were comparable at 19.85 and 19.12 respectively. At the six-month time point, there was an OHS improvement of 20.89 points for DAA and 18.82 points for Posterior THA and this was statistically significant (P-Value <0.001). At the two, five and 10-year time-points the OHS and OHS improvement from the pre-operative review were comparable. At the 10-year time point post-op the OHS for DAA THA was 42.63, 42.10 for posterior THA and the mean improvement from pre-op to 10-years post op was 22.78 and 22.98 respectively. There was no statistical difference when comparing the OHS or the OHS mean improvements at the two, five and 10-year point.
Whilst there was greater improvement and statistical significance during the initial six month time period, as time went on there was no statistically significant difference between the outcome measures or revision rates for the two approaches.
