Introduction. The Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) offers potential advantages of quicker rehabilitation compared to posterior approach THR. The aim of this study was to compare hospital based and early clinical outcomes between these two groups with utilisation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. Patients/Materials & Methods. Prospectively collected data for both cohorts were matched for age, gender, ASA grade, BMI, operation side, Pre-operative Oxford Hip score (OHS) and attendance at multi-disciplinary joint school. The pain scores at 0,1,2,3 post-op days, the day of mobilization, inpatient duration, complications, 28 days readmission rates and OHS at 6 and 24 months were compared. Results. Four hundred and fifty two THR (DAA: 219, Posterior: 233) were matched. There was no difference in OHS at 6 months (p=0.07). There was also no difference in pain scores at 0, 1, 2, and 3rd post op days, the day of first mobilization (p=0.32), length of stay (p= 0.3), 28 days readmission (p=0.11) or OHS at 24 months (p=0. 09). 68% of DAA vs 58 % of posterior approach patients achieved planned in-patient duration target of 3 days (p= 0.04). There were six peri-prosthetic femoral fractures in DAA group vs one in posterior approach group (p=0.097). No significant difference was identified for complications, re-operation or 28 days readmission rates between two groups. Discussion. The DAA procedures were performed by two surgeons with extensive prior experience in DAA approach. The potential advantages and complications especially during early learning curve have to be carefully considered by operating surgeon who wishes to start performing DAA approach. The ERAS protocol can potentially reduce the difference in early recovery between two groups. Conclusion. There is no significant difference in clinical outcomes between DAA and posterior approach THR with utilisation of ERAS protocol except potential of discharge from the hospital within three days following the DAA procedure

The development and implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are of particular interest in elective orthopaedics due to clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. The Wycombe Arthroplasty Rapid-Recovery Pathway (WARP) was designed to streamline hip and knee joint arthroplasty to reduce time spent in hospital whilst optimising outcomes in an NHS District General Hospital. 966 patients were admitted to Wycombe General Hospital for primary elective joint replacement (60 UKR, 446 THR, 460 TKR) during the period 1st September 2020 to 31st September 2022. The WARP pathway was used for 357 (37%) patients (32 UKR, 155 THR, 170 TKR) and the standard “non-WARP” pathway was used for 609 (63%) patients (28 UKR 291 THR, 290 TKR). Data was collected on length of stay, time of mobilisation, number of physiotherapy sessions, and inpatient morbidity. Average length of stay following UKR was 0.75 days for WARP vs 2.96 for non-WARP patients, following THR was 2.17 days for WARP vs 4.17 for non-WARP patients, following TKR was 3.4 days for WARP vs 3.92 for non-WARP patients. Day-0 mobilisation after UKR was achieved in 97% of WARP vs 12% of non-WARP patients, after THR in 43% of WARP vs 14% of non-WARP patients, after TKR in 33% of WARP vs 11% of non-WARP patients. Same-day discharge was achieved in the WARP cohort in 63% of UKR, 10% of THR, 2% of TKR patients. There were no same-day discharges in the non-WARP cohort. Complications delaying mobilisation (pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness/low BP) were identified in 8.4% of WARP vs 25% of non-WARP patients. Our cohort study shows that the initiation of WARP Rapid Recovery pathway for joint arthroplasty decreased the average length of stay after UKR by 2.21 days, after THR by 2 days, after TKR by 0.52 days. Time to first mobilisation was decreased significantly by increased rates of same-day mobilisation and reduced rates of postoperative anaesthetic-related complications