Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2020; 4(03): 101-109
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714297
Original Article

Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 35 Is Effective Regardless of Surgical Approach

David Novikov 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Tyler A. Luthringer
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Zlatan Cizmic
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan
,
Hayeem L. Rudy
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Siddharth Mahure
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Roy I. Davidovitch
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Jonathan M. Vigdorchik
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Despite the increasing frequency of younger patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), very few, if any, studies report on postoperative outcomes that specifically compare the two most commonly used approaches in this age group. The purpose of our study is to assess whether surgical approach affects postoperative outcomes in THA patients younger than 35 years. A retrospective analysis of 115 patients younger than 35 years that underwent primary unilateral THA between January 2013 and April 2018 was conducted. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) patients that underwent THA utilizing the anterior approach and (2) patients that underwent THA utilizing the posterior approach. Subanalysis controlling for surgical case complexity and use of robotic assistance was performed. Radiographic analysis included measurement of perioperative leg length discrepancies. Of the total 115 patients, 37 were in the anterior THA cohort, and 78 were in the posterior THA cohort. All baseline patient characteristics were similar among both cohorts. Patients in the anterior THA cohort had shorter mean operative times (95 vs. 121 minutes; p < 0.01) and shorter mean hospital length of stay or LOS (1.9 vs. 2.8 days; p < 0.01). Leg length discrepancies, dislocation, revision, and all-cause postoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. When excluding complex cases and use of robotic assistance (anterior n = 36, posterior n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, LOS, or postoperative outcomes. Our study suggests that surgically complex patients were more likely to undergo posterior rather than anterior THA. When controlling for surgical complexity and use of robotic assistance, no difference between approach with respect to operative time, hospital LOS, dislocation, revision, and all-cause postoperative surgical complication rates in THA recipients under 35 years of age was found. The results suggest that the anterior and posterior approaches can be equally effective for the majority of young THA patients.

Keywords

anterior approach - posterior approach - young patients - postoperative outcomes


Publication History

Received: 03 September 2019

Accepted: 23 April 2020

Article published online:
22 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Springer BD, Connelly SE, Odum SM. , et al. Cementless femoral components in young patients: review and meta-analysis of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (Suppl. 06) 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pakos EE, Paschos NK, Xenakis TA. Long term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in young patients under 30. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2014; 2 (03) 157-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wangen H, Lereim P, Holm I, Gunderson R, Reikerås O. Hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years: excellent ten to 16-year follow-up results with a HA-coated stem. Int Orthop 2008; 32 (02) 203-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Finkbone PR, Severson EP, Cabanela ME, Trousdale RT. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 20 years. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (02) 213-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Clohisy JC, Oryhon JM, Seyler TM. , et al. Function and fixation of total hip arthroplasty in patients 25 years of age or younger. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (12) 3207-3213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Learmonth ID, Heywood AW, Kaye J, Dall D. Radiological loosening after cemented hip replacement for juvenile chronic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989; 71 (02) 209-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mäkelä KT, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Virolainen P, Paavolainen P, Remes V. Cemented versus cementless total hip replacements in patients fifty-five years of age or older with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (02) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Haber D, Goodman SB. Total hip arthroplasty in juvenile chronic arthritis: a consecutive series. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (03) 259-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Adelani MA, Keeney JA, Palisch A, Fowler SA, Clohisy JC. Has total hip arthroplasty in patients 30 years or younger improved? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (08) 2595-2601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kamath AF, Sheth NP, Hosalkar HH, Babatunde OM, Lee GC, Nelson CL. Modern total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 21 years. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (03) 402-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim YH, Choi Y, Kim JS. Cementless total hip arthroplasty with alumina-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearing in young patients with femoral head osteonecrosis. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (02) 218-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schwartz BE, Sisko ZW, Mayekar EM, Wang OJ, Gordon AC. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: is it safe in the current health care climate?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (12) 2819-2824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Christensen CP, Jacobs CA. Comparison of patient function during the first six weeks after direct anterior or posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA): a randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (Suppl. 09) 94-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Clark CR. A comparison of hospital length of stay and short-term morbidity between the anterior and the posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (05) 849-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goulding K, Beaulé PE, Kim PR, Fazekas A. Incidence of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve neuropraxia after anterior approach hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (09) 2397-2404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Seng BE, Adams JB. Enhanced early outcomes with the anterior supine intermuscular approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl. 06) 107-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jewett BA, Collis DK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (02) 503-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Matta JM, Shahrdar C, Ferguson T. Single-incision anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty on an orthopaedic table. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441 (441) 115-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sariali E, Leonard P, Mamoudy P. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty using Hueter anterior approach. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (02) 266-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C, Hozack WJ, Ong A. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22 (09) 595-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (09) 1839-1841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP, Surgeons P, Renton W. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (09) 1634-1638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sabharwal S, Kumar A. Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (12) 2910-2922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Maratt JD, Gagnier JJ, Butler PD, Hallstrom BR, Urquhart AG, Roberts KC. No difference in dislocation seen in anterior vs posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (Suppl. 09) 127-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McKie J, Devane P, Young S. , et al. The New Zealand Joint Registry Nineteen Year Report: 1999–2017. 2017 . Available at: www.nzoa.org.nz/nz-joint-registry . Accessed January 6, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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 (03) 883-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Aggarwal VK, Weintraub S, Klock J. , et al. Frank Stinchfield Award: A comparison of prosthetic joint infection rates between direct anterior and non-anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (6_Supple_B): 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Malek IA, Royce G, Bhatti SU. , et al. A comparison between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty: the role of an ‘Enhanced Recovery’ pathway. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (06) 754-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB. Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (02) 173-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (03) 419-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Abbas K, Umer M, Qadir I, Zaheer J, ur Rashid H. Predictors of length of hospital stay after total hip replacement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2011; 19 (03) 284-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 den Hartog YM, Mathijssen NMC, Hannink G, Vehmeijer SBW. Which patient characteristics influence length of hospital stay after primary total hip arthroplasty in a ‘fast-track’ setting?. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (01) 19-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chen X, Xiong J, Wang P. , et al. Robotic-assisted compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J 2018; 94 (1112): 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Radoicic D, Zec V, Elassuity WI, Azab MA. Patient's perspective on direct anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018; 42 (12) 2771-2775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hip arthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1296-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar