Clinical and radiologic outcomes in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with Collum Femoris Preserving stems: a comparison between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach

Abstract

Background The direct anterior approach (DAA) and posterior approach (PA) are two of the most common surgical approaches used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) worldwide. The curved anatomical collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem was designed to preserve the bone of the femoral neck and allow physiologic load transfer along the trabecular systems, which may better restore hip biomechanics, improve triplanar stem stability and improve the long-term survival rate. We believe this study will demonstrate whether the DAA is suitable for THA with CFP stems. Methods The data of patients who underwent primary THA with CFP stems from January 2010 to December 2015 were retrospectively analysed. These patients were divided into two groups (group A, DAA; group B, PA). The approach was selected by the surgeon. The demographic characteristics, preoperative diagnoses, preoperative Harris hip score, preoperative range of motion, postoperative complications, and radiologic measurements (neck-shaft angle, coronal alignment, sagittal alignment, stress shielding, anteversion, neck-preserving ratio, acetabular anteversion, acetabular inclination angle, acetabular depth, anterior-posterior offset, lateral offset, difference in leg length) were recorded for all patients. Results In this study, a total of 248 patients (185 male and 63 female) were included. No significant differences were found between group A and group B in terms of general patient information and radiologic measurements. However, the rate of nerve injury in group A (7/5.5%) was significantly higher than that in group B (1/0.8%) (p = 0.037). At 1 month after surgery, we found a significant difference between the two groups in the Harris hip score (HHS) (71.03 ± 8.04 in group A, 68.39 ± 8.37 in group B, P = 0.014) and forgotten joint score (FJS-12) (50.78 ± 7.57 in group A, 47.68 ± 7.34 in group B, P = 0.001). At 1 year after surgery, the mean FJS-12 score in group A (68.78 ± 7.54) was higher than that in group B (58.84 ± 8.91) (P < 0.001). At 5 years after surgery, the mean FJS-12 score in group A (73.38 ± 7.21) was higher than that in group B (67.16 ± 9.12) (P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis of the 1-month, 1-year, and 5-year postoperative FJS-12 scores using multiple linear regression analysis revealed that an excellent HHS led to good patient satisfaction at each time point. Conclusion In summary, unlike a “standard” femoral stem, whose alignment might be affected by the surgical approach, alignment of the CFP stem is independent from the surgical approach. Even though the DAA had a higher nerve injury rate, nerve injury from the DAA did not typically cause severe dysfunction of the lower extremity. Therefore, decisions regarding the surgical approach for patients undergoing THA with CFP stems can be made primarily based on the preference of the surgeon.

No clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures across total hip arthroplasty approaches

“…The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) was evaluated by a total of 3 articles comparing DAA versus PA (Table 1). 19,20,27 Though the FJS-12 scores tended to favour DAA, pooled data from all 3 of these studies demonstrated no significant differences in FJS-12 scores between the DAA and PA group (MD 5.88; 95% CI, −0.36–12.12; p = 0.06) (Figure 7).…”

“…Utilising the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 articles were included in the final analysis. 16–39 Each article’s reference list was evaluated in a stepwise manner, and no additional studies were included.…”

“…The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was the most utilised PROM with 12 studies comparing DAA to other approaches (Table 1). [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]28,33,35,38,39 6 of the 12 included studies provided data that could be used for pooled analysis. While the general trend of the HHS scores seemed to favour the DAA, this difference between DAA and other approaches was not significant under the random-effects model (MD 2.38; 95% CI, −0.27-5.03; p = 0.08) (Figure 2).…”

Systematic evaluation of joint amnesia in patients after total hip replacement surgery with comparison between anterior and posterior approaches

“…Since its introduction, many clinical workers have used it as an important indicator of the maximum satisfaction and surgical success of patients after hip replacement surgery [8,9] . Previous studies have shown that compared to PA, DAA can achieve better FJS, but the conclusions of different studies are not consistent [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] . Currently, there is no evidence from systematic reviews on this aspect.…”

Femoral neck fracture patients with ischaemic stroke choose hemiarthroplasty or constrained liner total hip arthroplasty? A retrospective comparative study of 199 cases

“…During the initial stages of this learning curve, surgeons may encounter technical challenges that could influence surgical outcomes, including the incidence of complications. However, as the surgeon's proficiency improves, these differences may gradually diminish until reaching a similar level ( 10 ). In our study, the surgical method chosen by our surgeons was the Posterior Approach, and they had already overcome the learning curve, possessing extensive experience with this approach.…”