Comparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

There are several approaches to THA, and each has their respective advantages and disadvantages. Previous meta-analysis included non-randomised studies that introduce further heterogeneity and bias to the evidence presented. This meta-analysis aims to present level I evidence by comparing functional outcomes, peri-operative parameters and complications of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus posterior approach (PA) or lateral approach (LA) in THA. A comprehensive multi-database search (PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE) was conducted from date of database inception to 1st December 2020. Data from randomised controlled trials comparing outcomes of DAA versus PA or LA in THA were extracted and analysed. Twenty-four studies comprising 2010 patients were included in this meta-analysis. DAA has a longer operative time (MD = 17.38 min, 95%CI: 12.28, 22.47 min, P < 0.001) but a shorter length of stay compared to PA (MD = - 0.33 days, 95%CI: - 0.55, - 0.11 days, P = 0.003). There was no difference in operative time or length of stay when comparing DAA versus LA. DAA also had significantly better HHS than PA at 6 weeks (MD = 8.00, 95%CI: 5.85, 10.15, P < 0.001) and LA at 12 weeks (MD = 2.23, 95%CI: 0.31, 4.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in risk of neurapraxia for DAA versus LA or in risk of dislocations, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between DAA and PA or DAA and LA. The DAA has better early functional outcomes with shorter mean length of stay but was associated with a longer operative time than PA. There was no difference in risk of dislocations, neurapraxias, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between approaches. Based on our results, choice of THA approach should ultimately be guided by surgeon experience, surgeon preference and patient factors. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.