A comparison of surgical approaches for primary hip arthroplasty: a cohort study of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and early revision using linked national databases.

Abstract

The posterior and lateral approaches to primary hip arthroplasty were compared using national data from England and Wales. Specific component combinations of the most commonly used cemented and cementless implant brands were analysed separately. There was no significant difference between the approaches for all-cause revision risk (cemented: P = 0.726, cementless: P = 0.295) and revision for dislocation (P = 0.176, P = 0.695) at 12 months following 37,593 procedures, after adjusting for patient and surgical variables. Analysis of 3881 linked episodes found the posterior approach was associated with significantly higher improvement in function (Oxford Hip Score: 20.8 versus 18.9, P < 0.001 (cemented procedures); 21.7 versus 20.2, P = 0.008 (cementless), EQ5D index: 0.416 versus 0.383, P = 0.003; 0.431 versus 0.384, P = 0.003). The posterior approach may offer a functional benefit (albeit small clinically), without increased revision risk.