Whether direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty is a risk factor of eccentric reaming to the anterior column of the acetabulum?

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1192

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Direct anterior approach has been reported to be associated with a risk of reaming the anterior column of the acetabulum, but there is little evidence supporting this opinion.

OBJECTIVE: To reveal differences in the bone stock of the anterior and posterior columns between the direct anterior approach and the posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty by CT measurement.

METHODS: Sixty cases of primary total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach (n=30) or posterolateral approach (n=30) at Fuzhou Second Hospital of Xiamen University from October 2015 to December 2017 were enrolled. The cross-sectional area of the anterior and posterior column of the acetabulum, the height of the anterior and posterior column, acetabular diameter, and anteversion were measured by CT. All researchers had 5-10 years of clinical experience, and the surgeons were associate chief physicians or above. The trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Fuzhou Second Hospital of Xiamen University on June 1, 2017. All patients signed the written informed consents.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The postoperative cross-sectional area of the anterior and posterior column of the acetabulum, and the height of the anterior and posterior column in the two groups were less than those at baseline (P < 0.05), the acetabular diameter was larger than that at baseline (P < 0.01), and the anteversion showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). The area of the anterior column in the direct anterior approach group was higher than that in the posterolateral approach group (P < 0.05), and other parameters were insignificantly different between two groups (P > 0.05). (2) In summary, compared with posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty, direct anterior approach leads to increased area of the anterior column, and made no effect on other parameters. Thereafter, direct anterior approach is not a risk factor for eccentric reaming the anterior column of acetabulum, and the conclusion needs to be confirmed by multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials.

Key words: anterior column of the acetabulum, anteversion, total hip arthroplasty, direct anterior approach, posterolateral approach, femur head necrosis, risk factors, tissue engineering

CLC Number:

R459.9|R603

Su Lianbin, Feng Eryou, Zhang Yiyuan, Zhuo Youguang, Xiao Lili, Wang Wulian, Lin Feitai. Whether direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty is a risk factor of eccentric reaming to the anterior column of the acetabulum?[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2019, 23(20): 3117-3123.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1] Moretti V, Post Z. Surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty Indian J Orthop. 2017;51(4):368-376.

[2] Jordan J, Helmick J, Renner B, et al. Prevalence of hip symptoms and radiographic and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in African Americans and Caucasians: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(4):809-815.

[3] Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(17):1386-1397.

[4] Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J. 2011;16(5):80-85.

[5] Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, et al. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015;58(2):128-139.

[6] Connolly KP, Kamath AF. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: literature review of variations in surgical technique.World J Orthop. 2016;7(1):38-43.

[7] Ji W, Stewart N. Fluoroscopy assessment during anterior minimally invasive hip replacement is more accurate than with the posterior approach. Int Orthop. 2016;40(1):21-27.

[8] Zhang YJ, Li J, Qi K, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety between the anterior and the posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2017;49(2):201-205.

[9] Lin TJ, Bendich I, Ha AS, et al. A comparison of radiographic outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between the posterior approach and direct anterior approach with intraoperative fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):616-623.

[10] Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C,et al. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(9):595-603.

[11] Radoicic D, Zec V, Elassuity WI, et al. Patient's perspective on direct anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2018;42(12):2771-2775.

[12] Nistor DV, Caterev S,. Bolboaca SD, et al. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop. 2017;41(11):2245-2252.

[13] Seng BE, Berend KR, Ajluni AF, et al. Anterior-supine minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: defining the learning curve. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):343-350.

[14] Kobayashi H, Homma Y. Surgeons changing the approach for total hip arthroplasty from posterior to direct anterior with fluoroscopy should consider potential excessive cup anteversion and flexion implantation of the stem in their early experience. Int Orthop.2016;40(9):1813-1819.

[15] Barton C, Kim PR. Complications of the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):371-375.

[16] Chechik O, Khashan M, Lador R, et al. Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(11):1595-600.

[17] Holst DC, Yang CC. Surgical anatomy of the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Ann Joint. 2018;3:23-23.

[18] Uemura K, Takao M. Sakai T, et al. Volume increases of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, and thigh muscles after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(4):906-912.

[19] Xu D, Koyama H, Furuhashi H, et al. Comparison of hip muscle volume between fit-and-fill stem and tapered-wedge stem after total hip arthroplasty using the anterolateral approach. J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(6):1102-1106.

[20] Tongdee T, Keawaen P, Tongdee R. Evaluation of standard liver volume in adult Thai population using CT volumetric measurement. J Med Assoc Thai. 2013;96(2):217-2124.

[21] Dandachli W, Islam UL, Tippettr R, et al. Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(7):877-883.

[22] Pankal A, Mittal A, Chawla A. The validity and reproducibility of cross table radiographs compared with CT scans for the measurement of anteversion of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-b(8):1006-1011.

[23] Nomura T, Naito M, Nakamura Y, et al. An analysis of the best method for evaluating anteversion of the acetabular component after total hip replacement on plain radiographs. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(5):597-603.

[24] Shemesh S, Robinson S, Keswani A, et al. The accuracy of digital templating for primary total hip arthroplasty: is there a difference between direct anterior and posterior approaches? J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(6):1884-1889.

[25] Hartford JM, Knowles SB. Risk factors for perioperative femoral fractures: cementless femoral implants and the direct anterior approach using a fracture table. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(9): 2013-2018.

[26] Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1): 229-240.

[27] Cheng TE, Wallis JA, Taylor NF, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty-comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):883-890.

[28] Cadossi M, Sambri A, Tedesco G, et al. Anterior approach in total hip replacement. Orthopedics. 2017;40(3):e553-556.

[29] Pilliar RM, Leeand J, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(208):108-113.

[30] Fehring K, Owen A. Kurdin A, et al. Initial stability of press-fit acetabular components under rotational forces. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):1038-1042.

[31] Markel D, Horaand N, Grimm M. Press-fit stability of uncemented hemispheric acetabular components: a comparison of three porous coating systems. Int Orthop. 2002;26(2):72-75.

[32] Saleh K, Bear B, Wright T, et al. Initial stability of press-fit acetabular components: an in vitro biomechanical study. Am J Orthop. 2008;37(10):519.

[33] Kim YH. Acetabular Cup Revision. Hip Pelvis. 2017;29(3):155-158.

[34] Lingaraj K, Teoand YH, Bergman N. The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(12):1555-1560.

[35] Meneghini RM, Elston AS, Chen AF, et al. Direct anterior approach: risk factor for early femoral failure of cementless total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(2):99-105.

[36] Homma Y, Baba T, Sano K, et al. Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury with the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2016;40(8):1587-1593.

[37] Eto S, Hwang K, Huddleston JI, et al. The direct anterior approach is associated with early revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):1001-1005.

[38] Ozaki Y, Homma Y, Baba T, et al. Spontaneous healing of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury and improved quality of life after total hip arthroplasty via a direct anterior approach. J Orthop Surg. 2017;25(1) 1-7.