Direct Anterior Approach: Risk Factor for Early Femoral Failure of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty A Multicenter Study

R. Meneghini, A. S. Elston, Antonia F. Chen, M. Kheir, T. Fehring, B. Springer
{"title":"Direct Anterior Approach: Risk Factor for Early Femoral Failure of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty A Multicenter Study","authors":"R. Meneghini, A. S. Elston, Antonia F. Chen, M. Kheir, T. Fehring, B. Springer","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.16.00060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is marketed with claims of superiority over other approaches. Femoral exposure can be technically challenging and potentially lead to early failure. We examined whether surgical approach is associated with early THA failure. Methods: A retrospective review of 478 consecutive early revision THAs performed within 5 years after the primary THAs at 3 academic centers from 2011 through 2014 was carried out. Exclusion criteria resulted in a final analysis sample of 342 early-failure THAs. The surgical approach of the primary operation that was revised, the time to the revision, and the etiology of the failure leading to the revision were documented. Results: Analysis of the revisions due to early femoral failure showed them to be more common in patients who had undergone the direct anterior approach (57/112; 50.9%) than in those treated with the direct lateral (39/112; 34.8%) or the posterior (16/112; 14.3%) approach (p = 0.001). In multivariate regression analysis controlling for age, sex, laterality, Dorr bone type, body mass index (BMI) at revision, bilateral procedure (yes/no), and femoral stem type, the direct anterior approach remained a significant predictor of early femoral failure (p = 0.007). The majority of early revisions due to instability were associated with the posterior (19/40; 47.5%) or direct anterior (15/40; 37.5%) approach (p = 0.001 for the comparison with the direct lateral approach [6/40; 15.0%]). Conclusions: Despite claims of earlier recovery and improved outcomes with the direct anterior approach for THA, our findings indicate that that approach may confer a greater risk of early femoral failure and, along with the posterior approach, confer a greater risk of early instability compared with the direct lateral approach. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22579,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","volume":"38 1","pages":"99–105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"98","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 98

Abstract

Background: The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is marketed with claims of superiority over other approaches. Femoral exposure can be technically challenging and potentially lead to early failure. We examined whether surgical approach is associated with early THA failure. Methods: A retrospective review of 478 consecutive early revision THAs performed within 5 years after the primary THAs at 3 academic centers from 2011 through 2014 was carried out. Exclusion criteria resulted in a final analysis sample of 342 early-failure THAs. The surgical approach of the primary operation that was revised, the time to the revision, and the etiology of the failure leading to the revision were documented. Results: Analysis of the revisions due to early femoral failure showed them to be more common in patients who had undergone the direct anterior approach (57/112; 50.9%) than in those treated with the direct lateral (39/112; 34.8%) or the posterior (16/112; 14.3%) approach (p = 0.001). In multivariate regression analysis controlling for age, sex, laterality, Dorr bone type, body mass index (BMI) at revision, bilateral procedure (yes/no), and femoral stem type, the direct anterior approach remained a significant predictor of early femoral failure (p = 0.007). The majority of early revisions due to instability were associated with the posterior (19/40; 47.5%) or direct anterior (15/40; 37.5%) approach (p = 0.001 for the comparison with the direct lateral approach [6/40; 15.0%]). Conclusions: Despite claims of earlier recovery and improved outcomes with the direct anterior approach for THA, our findings indicate that that approach may confer a greater risk of early femoral failure and, along with the posterior approach, confer a greater risk of early instability compared with the direct lateral approach. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
直接前路入路:无水泥全髋关节置换术早期股骨衰竭的危险因素:一项多中心研究
背景:全髋关节置换术(THA)的直接前路被认为比其他入路更优越。股骨暴露在技术上具有挑战性,并可能导致早期手术失败。我们研究了手术入路是否与早期THA失败有关。方法:回顾性分析2011年至2014年3个学术中心在首次tha术后5年内连续进行的478例早期翻修tha。排除标准产生了342例早期失效tha的最终分析样本。我们记录了原手术的手术入路、手术时间以及导致手术失败的病因。结果:早期股骨功能衰竭的翻修分析显示,在直接前路入路患者中更常见(57/112;50.9%)高于直接外侧支链治疗组(39/112;34.8%)或后侧(16/112;14.3%)方法(p = 0.001)。在多变量回归分析中,控制年龄、性别、侧位、背骨类型、翻修时体重指数(BMI)、双侧手术(是/否)和股骨干类型,直接前路手术仍然是早期股衰竭的重要预测因素(p = 0.007)。由于不稳定导致的早期翻修大多数与后路有关(19/40;47.5%)或直接前路(15/40;37.5%)入路与直接侧入路比较(p = 0.001) [6/40;15.0%)。结论:尽管声称THA的直接前路入路具有更早的恢复和更好的预后,但我们的研究结果表明,与直接外侧入路相比,该入路可能具有更大的早期股骨衰竭风险,并且与后路入路一起,具有更大的早期不稳定风险。证据等级:治疗性III级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信