We assessed the difference in hospital based and early clinical
outcomes between the direct anterior approach and the posterior
approach in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA). The outcome was assessed in 448 (203 males, 245 females) consecutive
patients undergoing unilateral primary THA after the implementation
of an ‘Enhanced Recovery’ pathway. In all, 265 patients (mean age:
71 years (49 to 89); 117 males and 148 females) had surgery using
the direct anterior approach (DAA) and 183 patients (mean age: 70
years (26 to 100); 86 males and 97 females) using a posterior approach.
The groups were compared for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists
grade, body mass index, the side of the operation, pre-operative
Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and attendance at ‘Joint school’. Mean follow-up
was 18.1 months (one to 50).Aims
Patients and Methods
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. 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.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Between January 2000 and December 2007, 31 patients 90 years of age or older underwent total hip replacement at our hospital. Their data were collected prospectively. The rate of major medical complications was 9%. The surgical re-operation rate was 3%. The requirement for blood transfusion was 71% which was much higher than for younger patients. The 30-day, one-year and current mortality figures were 6.4% (2 of 31), 9.6% (3 of 31) and 55% (17 of 31), respectively, with a mean follow-up for the 14 surviving patients of six years. Cox’s regression analysis revealed no significant independent predictors of mortality. Only 52% of patients returned immediately to their normal abode, with 45% requiring a prolonged period of rehabilitation. This is the first series to assess survival five years after total hip replacement for patients in their 90th year and beyond. Hip replacement in the extreme elderly should not be discounted on the grounds of age alone, although the complication rate exceeds that for younger patients. It can be anticipated that almost half of the patients will survive five years after surgery.
Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone. We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm
