A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties

Author:

Hoskins Wayne12ORCID,Corfield Sophie3,Peng Yi3,Graves Stephen E3,Bingham Roger2

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

2. Traumaplasty. Melbourne, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

3. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Abstract

Background: Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA. Methods: Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size. Results: The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74–1.03), p = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08–8.30], p < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43–0.81], p = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0–3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27–0.83], p = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15–0.61], p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71–1.43]), p = 0.975). Conclusions: There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3