Abstract
The posterior approach to the hip avoids violating abductors and has presumed functional advantages. The anterolateral approach risks abductor damage, but has reportedly lower dislocation rate.
To determine effects of surgical approach on function and dislocation after primary and revision THR 3274 primary THRs and 66 first time revision THRs were investigated from the arthroplasty database (2000–2008).
2682 (82%) primary THRs were via anterolateral approach, 592 (18%) by posterior. Post primary dislocation rate was 50/2682 (1.9%) for anterolateral and 26/592 (4.4%) for posterior. Posterior approach had significantly better Harris Hip Scores: 91 vs 88 (P = 0.000) and function: 40 vs 37 (P = 0.000). Of the 66 revisions THRs, 30 were anterolateral and 36 posterior. Dislocation rates were 2/30 (6.7%) and 4/36 (11.1%) respectively. There was no significant difference in Harris Hip Score or Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on revision surgery approach. However there was a significant difference in Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on the approach for primary surgery (Anterolateral 30 vs Posterior 37, P=0.008) and a similar trend in Harris Hip Score (Anterolateral 79 vs Posterior 85, P = 0.198) and patients who had posterior approach for both primary and revision had the best scores overall.
The clinical relevance of the modest, but statistically significant difference in Harris hip score after primary THR is unclear. That primary approach has an impact on function after revision suggests the posterior approach should be considered in younger patients likely to require revision in the future.
