Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20200910-01Cited by:1

Abstract

A variety of surgical approaches are used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Controversy still exists regarding whether the direct anterior approach truly minimizes muscle damage. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of surgical approach for THA on muscle atrophy quantified through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study included 25 hips in patients with a mean age of 64.72±8.35 years who underwent a primary unilateral THA for severe osteoarthritis. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach: direct anterior (n=9), direct lateral (n=9), and posterior (n=7). Magnetic resonance images were collected at the 24-week postoperative time point to assess atrophy/fatty infiltration of the hip musculature. All MRIs were assessed by a fellowship-trained radiologist who was blinded to all clinical information. There were no significant differences preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively between the surgical approach groups in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (P>.05). Significant differences in fatty infiltration differences between surgical approaches were observed in the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, iliacus, obturator externus, obturator internus, pectineus, psoas, quadratus femoris, sartorius, and vastus intermedius (P<.05). The direct anterior approach to THA resulted in less atrophy of the hip musculature compared with a direct lateral or posterior approach; however, there were no differences in patient-reported clinical outcome scores at 1 year between the surgical approaches. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):361–366.]

  • 1.Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE, Huo MH, Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(suppl 4):39–48. 10.2106/00004623-200300004-00005 PMID:14652392

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2.American Joint Replacement Registry. American Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report: 2016. Rosemont, IL: American Joint Replacement Registry; 2016.

    Google Scholar
  • 3.Canada Institute for Health Information. Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report: Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada, 2014–2015. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/cjrr-annual-report-2016-en.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2018.

    Google Scholar
  • 4.Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015; 58(2):128–139. 10.1503/cjs.007214 PMID:25799249

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.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):1595–1600. 10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0 PMID:23912418

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6.Petis S, Howard J, Lanting B, Jones I, Birmingham T, Vasarhelyi E. Comparing the anterior, posterior, and lateral approach: gait analysis in total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2018; 61(1):50–57.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7.Petis SM, Howard JL, Lanting BA, Somerville LE, Vasarhelyi EM. Perioperative predictors of length of stay after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(7):1427–1430. 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.005 PMID:26869060

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982; 64(1):17–19. 10.1302/0301-620X.64B1.7068713 PMID:7068713

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.Müller M, Schwachmeyer V, Tohtz S, et al.The direct lateral approach: impact on gait patterns, foot progression angle and pain in comparison with a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132(5):725–731. 10.1007/s00402-012-1467-x PMID:22294091

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.Howell GED, Biggs RE, Bourne RB. Prevalence of abductor mechanism tears of the hips in patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(1):121–123. 10.1054/arth.2001.19158 PMID:11172282

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.Rathod PA, Orishimo KF, Kremenic IJ, Deshmukh AJ, Rodriguez JA. Similar improvement in gait parameters following direct anterior & posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1261–1264. 10.1016/j.arth.2013.11.021 PMID:24405621

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Ranawat CS, Meftah M, Potter HG, Ranawat AS. The posterior approach in THR: assuring capsular stability. Orthopedics. 2011; 34(9):e452–e455. 10.3928/01477447-20110714-33 PMID:21902128

    LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9):1634–1638. 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.034 PMID:23523485

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ, et al.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):1392–1398.10.2106/JBJS.J.00557

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Clark CR. 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):849–854. 10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.029 PMID:23489731

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16.Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(3):419–434. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.020 PMID:25453632

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17.Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T, Jacobs CA. Greater prevalence of wound complications requiring reoperation with direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9):1839–1841. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.036 PMID:24890998

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18.Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Hozack WJ. Muscle damage during MIS total hip arthroplasty: Smith-Petersen versus posterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 453(453):293–298. 10.1097/01.blo.0000238859.46615.34 PMID:17006366

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19.Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C. Randomized controlled trial of abductor muscle damage in relation to the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement: minimally invasive anterolateral versus modified direct lateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(2):179–189. 10.1007/s00402-010-1117-0 PMID:20490520

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20.Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(9):1947–1954.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Pfirrmann CW, Notzli HP, Dora C, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Abductor tendons and muscles assessed at MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Radiology. 2005; 235(3):969–976. 10.1148/radiol.2353040403 PMID:15860673

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22.Müller M, Tohtz S, Dewey M, Springer I, Perka C. Evidence of reduced muscle trauma through a minimally invasive anterolateral approach by means of MRI. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(12):3192–3200. 10.1007/s11999-010-1378-5 PMID:20458641

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Bremer AK, Kalberer F, Pfirrmann CWA, Dora C. Soft-tissue changes in hip abductor muscles and tendons after total hip replacement: comparison between the direct anterior and the transgluteal approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(7):886–889. 10.1302/0301-620X.93B7.25058 PMID:21705558

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24.Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad FS. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(6):732–740. 10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.38053 PMID:28566391

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Chen DW, Hu CC, Chang YH, Yang WE, Lee MS. Comparison of clinical outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty by conventional anterolateral transgluteal or 2-incision approach. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24(4):528–532. 10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.016 PMID:18676112

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26.Müller M, Tohtz S, Winkler T, Dewey M, Springer I, Perka C. MRI findings of gluteus minimus muscle damage in primary total hip arthroplasty and the influence on clinical outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130(7):927–935. 10.1007/s00402-010-1085-4 PMID:20221834

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27.Ince A, Kemper M, Waschke J, Hendrich C. Minimally invasive anterolateral approach to the hip: risk to the superior gluteal nerve. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78(1):86–89. 10.1080/17453670610013466 PMID:17453397

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×