title: Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although some surgeons strongly advocate for one approach over the other, there are few data directly comparing the direct anterior approach with a miniposterior approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Using the same advanced pain and rapid rehabilitation protocols for both groups, we compared the direct anterior and miniposterior approaches with respect to (1) return to activities of daily living at 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months; (2) risk of intraoperative or early postoperative complications; and (3) component position.
  
  
  METHODS
  Over a 1-year period we identified all consecutive, primary direct anterior and miniposterior THAs performed by two surgeons at our institution, totaling 242 patients. Of those, 20 did not meet inclusion criteria as a result of prior trauma or surgery about the hip. A total of 222 patients, 126 direct anterior and 96 miniposterior, were retrospectively evaluated. All cases were done by one of two surgeons, one of whom performs THA exclusively through the direct anterior approach and the other who only uses the miniposterior approach. Groups did not differ demographically with mean±SD age 64±12 years, mean body mass index 30±5.7 kg/m2, and 50% female. The same rapid rehabilitation protocols were used with no postoperative hip positioning precautions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No differences were seen between the two groups in mean length of stay (2.2 days; range, 1-9 days), operative or in-hospital complications, intravenous breakthrough analgesia, stairs, maximum feet walked in-hospital, or percent discharged to home (80% [177 of 222]; all p>0.2). The direct anterior patients had longer mean operative times (114 minutes; range, 60-251 minutes) than the miniposterior patients (mean, 60 minutes; range, 41-113 minutes; p<0.001). The direct anterior group had a higher maximum visual analog scale pain score (5.3 direct anterior; ±2, versus 3.8 MP; ±2; p<0.0001). At 2 weeks, more direct anterior patients required gait aids (92% [116 of 126]) than miniposterior (68% [62 of 96]; p<0.0001). At 8 weeks, direct anterior patients had higher mean Harris hip scores (95 versus 89) but a lower return to work and driving with no difference in their use of gait aids, narcotics, activities of daily living, or walking 0.5 mile. More wound problems occurred in the miniposterior group (p<0.01). With the numbers available, component alignment was not different between the study groups (p>0.05 for all comparisons).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no systematic advantage of direct anterior THA versus miniposterior THA. Contrary to conventional belief and somewhat surprising were the fewer minor wound problems in the direct anterior group and the higher proportion of patients free of gait aids at 2 weeks and back to driving and working at 8 weeks in the miniposterior group. Factors other than surgical approach, perhaps including attentive pain management, patient selection, surgical volume and experience, careful preoperative templating, and rapid rehabilitation protocols, may be more important in terms of influencing early recovery after THA.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 300 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA, poehlingmonaghan.kirsten@mayo.edu.
authors.forename: Kirsten L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Poehling-Monaghan
authors.forename: Atul F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Kamath
authors.forename: Michael J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Taunton
authors.forename: Mark W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Pagnano
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000379:methods*; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Dec;15(12):707-15
references.pmid: 18063711
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11 Suppl A):8-10
references.pmid: 23118371
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:99-103
references.pmid: 16330991
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Apr;87(4):701-10
references.pmid: 15805196
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:115-24
references.pmid: 16330993
references.citation: Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:149-55
references.pmid: 15116609
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2009 Aug;24(5):698-704
references.pmid: 18555653
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Sep;(426):164-73
references.pmid: 15346069
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):248-55
references.pmid: 15577495
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Feb;470(2):471-6
references.pmid: 21822569
references.citation: Orthop Clin North Am. 2004 Apr;35(2):153-62
references.pmid: 15062701
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Apr;469(4):1110-8
references.pmid: 21076897
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jun;89(6):1153-60
references.pmid: 17545416
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):503-7
references.pmid: 20886324
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec;453:293-8
references.pmid: 17006366
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2005 Feb;20(2):139-44
references.pmid: 15902851
references.citation: Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Aug;72(2):649-57
references.pmid: 11515928
references.citation: Acta Orthop. 2012 Aug;83(4):342-6
references.pmid: 22880711
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jul;86(7):1353-8
references.pmid: 15252080
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct;28(9):1634-8
references.pmid: 23523485
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 May;90(5):1000-6
references.pmid: 18451391
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4 Suppl 1):78-80
references.pmid: 15190555
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 May;(165):180-7
references.pmid: 7075057
references.citation: Hip Int. 2012 Mar-Apr;22(2):153-9
references.pmid: 22547373
references.citation: Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Jun;72(3):215-20
references.pmid: 11480593
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Dec;24(10):812-8
references.pmid: 19699566
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jun;470(6):1690-5
references.pmid: 22302656
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2004 Aug;19(5):538-45
references.pmid: 15284972
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jun;467(6):1431-7
references.pmid: 19224307
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Feb;470(2):511-5
references.pmid: 21989783
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2010 Aug;25(5):671-9.e1
references.pmid: 20378307
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:104-14
references.pmid: 16330992
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jun;467(6):1418-23
references.pmid: 19214642