Comparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several approaches to THA, and each has their respective advantages and disadvantages. Previous meta-analysis included non-randomised studies that introduce further heterogeneity and bias to the evidence presented. This meta-analysis aims to present level I evidence by comparing functional outcomes, peri-operative parameters and complications of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus posterior approach (PA) or lateral approach (LA) in THA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive multi-database search (PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE) was conducted from date of database inception to 1st December 2020. Data from randomised controlled trials comparing outcomes of DAA versus PA or LA in THA were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 2010 patients were included in this meta-analysis. DAA has a longer operative time (MD = 17.38 min, 95%CI: 12.28, 22.47 min, P < 0.001) but a shorter length of stay compared to PA (MD = - 0.33 days, 95%CI: - 0.55, - 0.11 days, P = 0.003). There was no difference in operative time or length of stay when comparing DAA versus LA. DAA also had significantly better HHS than PA at 6 weeks (MD = 8.00, 95%CI: 5.85, 10.15, P < 0.001) and LA at 12 weeks (MD = 2.23, 95%CI: 0.31, 4.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in risk of neurapraxia for DAA versus LA or in risk of dislocations, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between DAA and PA or DAA and LA. CONCLUSION: The DAA has better early functional outcomes with shorter mean length of stay but was associated with a longer operative time than PA. There was no difference in risk of dislocations, neurapraxias, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between approaches. Based on our results, choice of THA approach should ultimately be guided by surgeon experience, surgeon preference and patient factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Comparable dislocation and revision rates for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with subsequent or prior lumbar spinal fusion: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a known correlation between the procedures of lumbar spinal fusion (LSF), total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the complication of hip dislocation and revision occurring in patients. However there is no consensus as to whether the risk of this complication is higher if THA is performed before or after LSF. This meta-analysis aims to determine the influence of surgical sequence of lumbar spinal fusion and total hip arthroplasty on the rates of hip dislocation and revisions. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted with a multi-database search (PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, Medline) according to PRISMA guidelines on 27th May 2020. Data from all published literature meeting inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed with an inverse variance statistical model. FINDINGS: A total of 25,558 subsequent LSF and 43,880 prior LSF THA patients were included in this study. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause revisions (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.48-1.54, p = 0.61), dislocation (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.25-2.72, p = 0.75) or aseptic loosening (OR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.94-1.38, p = 0.17) when comparing patients receiving LSF subsequent versus prior to THA. CONCLUSION: Lumbar spinal fusion remains a risk factor for dislocation and revision of total hip arthroplasties regardless of whether it is performed prior to or after THA. Further preoperative assessment and altered surgical technique may be required in patients having THA who have previously undergone or are likely to undergo LSF in the future. EVIDENCE LEVEL: Level II, Meta-analysis of homogeneous studies.

Clinical outcomes and complication profile of total hip arthroplasty after lumbar spine fusion: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hip and spine pathology can alter the biomechanics of spino-pelvic mobility. Lumbar spine fusions can reduce the mobility of the lumbar spine and therefore result in compensatory femoral motion, contributing towards dislocations of THA. PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to determine the effect of pre-existing spine fusions on THA outcomes, and complication profile including hip dislocations, all-cause revisions and all complications. METHODS: A multi-database search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All studies that compared patients who underwent THA with and without prior SF were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this review, consisting of 28,396 SF THA patients and 1,550,291 non-SF THA patients. There were statistically significant higher rates of hip dislocation (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.71-2.85, p < 0.001), all-cause revision (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.96-6.00, p < 0.001) and all complications (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.28-6.24, p = 0.01) in SF than in non-SF THA patients. When registry data were excluded, these rates were approximately doubled. Subgroup analysis of revisions for dislocations was not statistically significant (OR 5.28, 95% CI 0.76-36.87, p = 0.09). While no meta-analysis was performed on clinical outcomes due to heterogeneous parameter reporting, individual studies reported significantly poorer outcomes in SF patients than in non-SF patients. CONCLUSION: THA patients with SF are at higher risks of hip dislocations, all-cause revisions and all complications, which may adversely affect patient-reported outcomes. Surgeons should be aware of these risks and appropriately plan to account for altered spino-pelvic biomechanics, in order to reduce the risks of hip dislocations and other complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (Meta-analysis of non-homogeneous studies). These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.