medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2026, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2026; 40 (4)

Reintegration of activities and functional capacity in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty with an anterior approach versus a direct lateral approach at 90 days

Isa-Maturana A, Fernández-Palomo LJ

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 239-247
PDF size: 913.07 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the type of surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty can have a significant impact on patients’ quality of life and reintegration into their daily lives. Material and methods: an analytical, longitudinal, observational, and prospective study was conducted with patients over 18 years of age, of both sexes, and metabolically stable, undergoing total hip arthroplasty scheduled for an anterior or lateral approach. Age, sex, weight, height, BMI, substance abuse, laterality of the injury, duration of injury, return to daily activities with the Technology-Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (T-ADLQ), and functional capacity with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) were analyzed. Results were compared according to the approach. Results: 179 patients, 105 with DLA and 63 with DAA; 87 women and 92 men, age was 69.0 years [IQR 66.0-77.0], the left hip was the most affected. In the baseline T-ADLQ, they had 43.7 ± 6.5 points (DAA) and 40.9 ± 6.4 (ALD) (p = 0.007). At follow-up they had 39.0 ± 6.3 points and 36.6 ± 6.5, respectively (p = 0.020). In the domains, there were significant differences in self-care, home and travel, both at baseline and follow-up. In the baseline HHS, the most frequent result was poor in both (p = 0.231), at followup in both the result was good (p = 0.549). Conclusion: both approaches were effective for functional capacity and return to activities in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.


REFERENCES

  1. Yue C, Kang P, Pei F. Comparison of direct anterior and lateralapproaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and metaanalysis(PRISMA). Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94(50): e2126.

  2. Colombi A, Schena D, Castelli CC. Total hip arthroplasty planning.EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4(11): 626-32.

  3. Neuprez A, Neuprez AH, Kaux JF, Kurth W, Daniel C, Thirion T,et al. Total joint replacement improves pain, functional quality oflife, and health utilities in patients with late-stage knee and hiposteoarthritis for up to five years. Clin Rheumatol. 2020; 39(3):861-71.

  4. Moretti VM, Post ZD. Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty.Indian J Orthop. 2017; 51(4): 368-76.

  5. McLawhorn AS, Christ AB, Morgenstern R, Burge AJ, Alexiades MM,Su EP. Prospective evaluation of the posterior tissue envelope andanterior capsule after anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2020; 35(3): 767-73.

  6. Meneghini RM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Hozack WJ. Muscledamage during MIS total hip arthroplasty: Smith-Peterson versusposterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 453: 293-8.

  7. Eto S, Hwang K, Huddleston JI, Amanatullah DF, Maloney WJ,Goodman SB. The direct anterior approach is associated with earlyrevision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(3): 1001-5.

  8. Graves SC, Dropkin BM, Keeney BJ, Lurie JD, Tomek IM. Doessurgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(4): 971-81.

  9. Hart A, Wyles CC, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Pagnano MW, TauntonMJ. Thirty-day major and minor complications following total hiparthroplasty—a comparison of the direct anterior, lateral, and posteriorapproaches. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(11): 2681-5.

  10. Radoicic D, Zec V, Elassuity WI, Azab MA. Patient’s perspective ondirect anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. IntOrthop. 2018; 42(12): 2771-5.

  11. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, BoettnerF, Wright J. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hiparthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? A systematic review withmeta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(4): 1296-302.

  12. Putananon C, Tuchinda H, Arirachakaran A, Wongsak S,Narinsorasak T, Kongtharvonskul J. Comparison of directanterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hiparthroplasty: network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.2018; 28(2): 255-67.

  13. Makhdom AM, Hozack WJ. Direct anterior versus direct lateralhip approach in total hip arthroplasty with the same perioperativeprotocols one year post fellowship training. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1): 216.

  14. Yang M, Yao M, Chu K, Wei C, Li Z, Huo J, et al. Efficacy of directanterior approach versus posterior lateral approach for total hipreplacement in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Med Sci Monit.2023; 29: e939682. doi: 10.12659/MSM.939682.

  15. Innocenti M, Cozzi Lepri A, Civinini A, Mondanelli N, MatassiF, Stimolo D, et al. Functional outcomes of anterior-based musclesparing approach compared to direct lateral approach for totalHIP arthroplasty following acute femoral neck fractures. GeriatrOrthop Surg Rehabil. 2023; 14: 21514593231170844. doi:10.1177/21514593231170844.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com