In-Hospital Morbidity and Postoperative Revisions After Direct Anterior vs Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

The direct anterior approach (DAA) offers the potential for less soft tissue insult, improved early recovery, and reduced dislocation rates. However, complications are associated with the DAA, particularly during the learning curve. We compare the DAA learning curve experience with the posterior approach regarding in-hospital complications and revision rate.

Methods

We evaluated systemic and local in-hospital complications associated with primary unilateral cementless THAs from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 in 4249 patients through a posterior approach and 289 patients through a DAA. All procedures were performed consecutively by high-volume surgeons who use a single approach in a nonselective manner. The DAA was performed by surgeon transitioning from the posterior approach, thus incorporating the learning curve. Demographics were comparable. Revision procedures were captured through a minimum 4-year follow-up. Analyses compared complication and revision rates.

Results

The DAA group demonstrated shorter length of stay, procedure time, lower blood transfusion rate, and increased discharge to home rate. Local and major systemic in-hospital complications were rare and comparable between groups. The minor systemic complication rate was significantly greater for the posterior group (10.9% posterior vs 6.2% DAA, P < .05). Revision rate was significantly greater for the posterior group (2.7% posterior vs 0.7% DAA, P < .032). The incidence of revision for dislocation was 1.5% for the posterior approach vs 0.4% for the DAA.

Conclusion

There was an increased rate of in-hospital minor systemic complications and overall revision, predominantly due to instability, after THA by the posterior approach, in comparison with the DAA.