Anatomic Total Hip Component Position Is More Reproducible With the Direct Anterior Approach Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopy

• Published in: Arthroplasty today Vol. 6; no. 4; pp. 777 - 783
• Main Authors: Martin, J. Ryan, Masonis, John L., Mason, J. Bohannon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.12.2020; Elsevier
• Subjects: Direct anterior approach; Implant position; Original Research; Posterior approach; Total hip replacement; Direct anterior approach; Total hip replacement; Implant position; Posterior approach
• ISSN: 2352-3441; 2352-3441
• DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.026

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has demonstrated excellent results regardless of the surgical approach. However, the approach used may be a factor in final positioning of implants. We hypothesized that the direct anterior approach (DAA) with fluoroscopy would be associated with more anatomic implant positioning than the posterior approach (PA). A retrospective review of 200 patients was performed. One hundred patients underwent THA utilizing the PA, and 100 patients, with the DAA. All patients had an anterior-posterior pelvis radiograph preoperatively and postoperatively with a magnification marker present to standardize each radiograph. Exclusion criteria included contralateral THA or any pelvic or femoral deformity. Preoperative radiographs demonstrated identical cohorts with respect to leg length, femoral offset, and total offset. Postoperatively, the DAA achieved more accurate anatomic restoration of leg length (1.6 mm vs 5.5 mm; P < .0001), femoral offset (4.8 mm vs 9.3 mm; P < .0001), and total offset (0.5 mm vs 4.7 mm; P < .0001) compared with the PA. Ideal cup abduction and anteversion were significantly superior to the DAA (96% vs 78%, P = .0002, and 69% vs 24%, P < .0001, respectively). This study is the first to compare anatomic implant positioning between patients undergoing THA with these 2 approaches. All parameters were significantly closer to anatomic implant positioning with the DAA. There are at least 2 potential explanations for this: (1) The DAA implant positioning was performed under fluoroscopic guidance, whereas the PA was not. (2) The PA disrupts the posterior capsule and external rotators, and therefore, increased offset or leg length may be necessary to achieve comparable hip stability with the DAA.