Direct anterior approach has short-term functional benefit and higher resource requirements compared with the posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Aims It has been suggested that the direct anterior approach (DAA) should be used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) instead of the posterior approach (PA) for better early functional outcomes. We conducted a value-based analysis of the functional outcome and associated perioperative costs, to determine which surgical approach gives the better short-term outcomes and lower costs. Methods This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and the Cochrane Handbook. Several online databases were searched. Non-stratified and stratified meta-analyses were conducted to test the confounding biases in the studies which were included. The mean cost and probability were used to determine the added costs of perioperative services. Results The DAA group had significantly longer operating times (p < 0.001), reduced length of hospital stay by a mean of 13.4 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.12 to 18; p < 0.001), and greater blood loss (p = 0.030). The DAA group had significantly better functional outcome at three (p < 0.001) and six weeks (p = 0.006) postoperatively according to the Harris Hip Score (HHS). However, there was no significant difference between the groups for the HHS at six to eight weeks (p = 0.230), 12 weeks (p = 0.470), six months (p = 0.740), and one year (p = 0.610), the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) physical score at six weeks (p = 0.580) and one year (p = 0.360), SF-12 mental score at six weeks (p = 0.170) and one year (p = 0.960), and University of California and Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale at 12 weeks (p = 0.250). The mean non-stratified and stratified difference in costs for the operating theatre time and blood transfusion were $587.57 (95% CI 263.83 to 1,010.29) to $887.04 (95% CI 574.20 to 1,298.88) and $248.38 (95% CI 1,003.40 to 1,539.90) to $1,162.41 (95% CI 645.78 to 7,441.30), respectively, more for the DAA group. However, the mean differences in costs for the time in hospital were $218.23 and $192.05, respectively, less for the DAA group. Conclusion The use of the DAA, rather than the PA, in THA has earlier benefits for function and pain. However, these are short-lasting, with no significant differences seen at later intervals. In addition the limited benefits were obtained with higher cumulative costs for DAA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1078–1087.