Direct Anterior Versus Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty: a Multicentre, Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview

Journal Can J Surg

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2020 Oct 3

PMID 33009898

Citations 30

Authors

Kevin Moerenhout

Pascale Derome

G Yves Laflamme

Stephane Leduc

Henry S Gaspard

Benoit Benoit

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The ideal approach for a total hip arthroplasty (THA) would be kind to soft tissues, have the lowest complication rates and be easily reproducible. Although there have been several attempts to find the best approach for THA in the last decade, a definitive answer has not been found. We performed a prospective study to compare the direct anterior and posterior approaches for THA in terms of hospital length of stay, functional outcome, pain, implant position, complications and surgical time.

Methods: A prospective, randomized, multicentre clinical study was conducted between February 2011 and July 2013, with an average follow-up of 55 months. Patients undergoing the direct anterior or posterior approach for THA were enrolled. Hospital length of stay, surgical time and complications were documented. The Harris Hip Score and visual analogue scale were used to monitor functional outcome and pain until 5 years postoperatively. Radiologic analysis was used to assess implant position.

Results: Fifty-five patients (28 undergoing the direct anterior approach, 27 undergoing the posterior approach) were enrolled in this study. Length of stay, functional outcome, pain, implant position and complications were similar for the 2 approaches. There was a trend toward a better functional outcome for patients who underwent the direct anterior approach in the first 3 months postoperatively, with a peak at 4 weeks (Harris Hip Score 76.7 v. 68.7; = 0.08). Average surgical time for the direct anterior approach was significantly longer (69.9 v. 45.7 min; = 0.002).

Conclusion: The direct anterior approach for THA appears to be a safe and effective option. However, there is no significant difference in hospital length of stay or postoperative recovery between the 2 approaches.

Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT03673514.

Citing Articles

Construction of a risk prediction model to identify potential risk factors for the development of delirium after total hip arthroplasty.

Cheng Y Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 103(52):e41054.

PMID: 39969388 PMC: 11688097. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041054.

Clinical efficacy of direct anterior approach versus posterior lateral approach for total hip replacement in middle-aged and elderly patients of femoral neck fracture.

Lu S, Li Y, Chai W, Yang Y, Bi Z, Wang H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):5273.

PMID: 39939618 PMC: 11822073. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-83371-x.

Foreign Body Entrapment on the Bearing Surface in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Report of Three Cases.

Ishikura H, Kato K, Madachi A, Tanaka T, Nishiwaki T Cureus. 2025; 16(12):e76249.

PMID: 39845227 PMC: 11752405. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76249.

Evaluating Short-Term Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Total Hip and Knee Replacement: A Comprehensive Review.

Patel V, Deshpande S, Jadawala V, Bhalsod D, Sawant S Cureus. 2024; 16(9):e70468.

PMID: 39479148 PMC: 11522172. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.70468.

Postoperative Harris Hip Score Versus Harris Hip Score Difference in Hip Replacement: What to Report?.

Ramadanov N, Voss M, Hable R, Hakam H, Prill R, Salzmann M Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(1):3-21.

PMID: 39434235 PMC: 11735366. DOI: 10.1111/os.14272.

References

Moore A . The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957; 39-A(4):811-27. View

Schweppe M, Seyler T, Plate J, Swenson R, Lang J . Does surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty affect rehabilitation, discharge disposition, and readmission rate?. Surg Technol Int. 2013; 23:219-27. View

Berstock J, Blom A, Beswick A . A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(10):1970-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.021. View

Taunton M, Mason J, Odum S, Springer B . Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9 Suppl):169-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.051. View

Graves S, Dropkin B, Keeney B, Lurie J, Tomek I . Does Surgical Approach Affect Patient-reported Function After Primary THA?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 474(4):971-81. PMC: 4773324. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4639-5. View

Gibson A . Posterior exposure of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950; 32-B(2):183-6. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.32B2.183. View

Rathod P, Bhalla S, Deshmukh A, Rodriguez J . Does fluoroscopy with anterior hip arthroplasty decrease acetabular cup variability compared with a nonguided posterior approach?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(6):1877-85. PMC: 4016457. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3512-2. View

Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H . A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 24(5):698-704. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.012. View

Ward S, Jones R, Long W, Thomas D, Dorr L . Functional recovery of muscles after minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2008; 57:249-54. View

10.

MARCY G, Fletcher R . Modification of the posterolateral approach to the hip for insertion of femoral-head prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954; 36-A(1):142-3. View

11.

Martin C, Pugely A, Gao Y, Clark C . 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(5):849-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.029. View

12.

Reininga I, Stevens M, Wagenmakers R, Boerboom A, Groothoff J, Bulstra S . Comparison of gait in patients following a computer-navigated minimally invasive anterior approach and a conventional posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Res. 2012; 31(2):288-94. DOI: 10.1002/jor.22210. View

13.

Spaans A, Van den Hout J, Bolder S . High complication rate in the early experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach. Acta Orthop. 2012; 83(4):342-6. PMC: 3427623. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2012.711701. View

14.

Barrett W, Turner S, Leopold J . Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9):1634-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.034. View

15.

Moore A . Metal hip joint; a new self-locking vitallium prosthesis. South Med J. 1952; 45(11):1015-19. DOI: 10.1097/00007611-195211000-00001. View

16.

Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad F . The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(6):732-740. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.38053. View

17.

Kwon M, Kuskowski M, Mulhall K, Macaulay W, Brown T, Saleh K . Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 447:34-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000218746.84494.df. View

18.

Chechik O, Khashan M, Lador R, Salai M, Amar E . Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 133(11):1595-600. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0. View

19.

Bergin P, Doppelt J, Kephart C, Benke M, Graeter J, Holmes A . Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(15):1392-8. PMC: 3143583. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00557. View

20.

Zhou Y, Cao S, Li L, Narava M, Fu Q, Qian Q . Is soft tissue repair a right choice to avoid early dislocation after THA in posterior approach?. BMC Surg. 2017; 17(1):60. PMC: 5438560. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0212-3. View