Direct Anterior Approach in Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: Do Short-Term Outcomes Differ with Approach?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Complications and Survivorship After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference by Surgical Approach?

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has traditionally been performed through the posterolateral approach (PA). Anterior approaches (AA) for rTHA are increasingly being utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare complications and survivorship from re-revision and reoperation after aseptic rTHA performed using an AA versus a PA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent aseptic rTHA either through an AA (direct anterior approach [DAA], anterior-based muscle sparing [ABMS]) or PA from January 2017 to December 2021. There were 116 patients who underwent AA-rTHA (DAA 50, ABMS 66) or PA-rTHA (n = 105). Patient demographics, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

The most common indication in both groups was aseptic loosening (n = 26, 22.4% AA, n = 28, 26.7% PA). Acetabular revision alone was most common in the AA group (n = 33, 28.4%), while both components were most commonly revised in the PA groups (n = 47, 44.8%). In all the AA-rTHA group, the index total hip arthroplasty was performed through a PA in 51% of patients, while the PA-rTHA group had the index procedure performed via AA in 4.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in re-revision rate between the DAA, ABMS, or PA groups (9.55 versus 5.3% versus 11.4%, respectively, P = .11). The most common overall reason for re-revision was persistent instability, with no difference in incidence of postoperative hip dislocation (n = 4, 6.8% DAA, n = 3, 5.3%, n = 10, 9.5% PA; P = .31).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates no difference in complication or re-revision survivorship after aseptic rTHA performed through a DAA, ABMS approach, or PA, nor between anterior or posterior-based approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Anterior Versus Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates and clinical outcomes at 1 year or until death based on the surgical approach for total hip replacement in femoral neck fractures.

Methods

This retrospective study was performed on 101 patients with displaced femoral neck fractures at our institution between 2005 and 2022. All surgeries were performed by fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons via either a posterior Kocher-Langenbeck approach, an abductor sparing anterolateral approach, or a direct anterior approach. Demographics were collected, as well as intraoperative characteristics, discharge information, and complications.

Results

Thirty-seven patients underwent a direct anterior approach, 42 underwent an abductor sparing anterolateral approach, and 22 underwent a posterior approach, with no significant difference in demographics between the groups. Of patients, 43.3% were able to be discharged home, while 55.4% of patients went to subacute rehab or other nursing home facility. There was a 30.6% complication rate, a 7% reoperation rate, and a 0.9% dislocation rate. The posterior group was more likely to be discharged to rehab instead of home (82.0% compared to 48.6%, P = .0054) and had a significant increase in complication rate (P = .04). There was a 36.3% rate of transfusion in the posterior group compared to a 5.0% rate in the anterior group (P < .0001).

Conclusions

Anterior-based total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in our series demonstrated a significantly lower rate of postoperative complications, a lower rate of transfusion, and a significantly higher rate of being discharged home.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of DSA and ALMIS Approach for Bipolar Cemented Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Neck of Femur Fracture

Background/Objectives: A neck of femur (NOF) fracture is one of the most common fractures, and its treatment in the geriatric population using cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA) is a standard procedure worldwide. Various surgical approaches have been described for this operation, aiming to reduce complications and improve early mobilization. The present study compares two minimally invasive approaches, the anterolateral minimally invasive approach (ALMIS) and the direct superior approach (DSA), with respect to their intraoperative and early postoperative complications in cemented bipolar HA. Methods: The medical records of all patients undergoing cemented bipolar HA for a NOF fracture between January 2017 and December 2023 were analyzed. The aim of the study was to compare the two surgical approaches. The evaluation focused on intraoperative parameters and early complications. Results: A total of 226 patients were included in the analysis, with 62 undergoing DSA and 164 ALMIS, with an average age of 83.5 years. The two approaches did not differ significantly in terms of stem implantation quality, length of hospital or intensive care unit stay, postoperative mobilization, or the need for transfusions. However, the ALMIS was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (DSA: 89.7 min vs. ALMIS: 77.2 min; p < 0.01). On the other hand, the DSA had a significantly lower complication rate (DSA: 0/61 vs. ALMIS: 11/163; p = 0.04). Conclusions: In a comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches, DSA and ALMIS, for treating a NOF fracture with cemented bipolar HA, the DSA demonstrated a lower complication rate, though it had a slightly longer operating time.

Indirect comparison in network meta-analysis between SuperPATH, direct anterior and conventional approach hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fracture

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to compare the short-term outcome of SuperPATH, direct anterior (DAA) and conventional approach (CA) hemiarthroplasty (HA) in patients with femoral neck fractures using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Epistemonikos, and Embase were searched until May 31, 2024. In a network meta-analysis, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and a fixed/random effects model for continuous outcomes, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method and a fixed/random effects model for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

The literature search identified a total of 9 randomized controlled trials on SuperPATH with 762 patients and 8 randomized controlled trials on DAA with 641 patients. In the overall ranking, SuperPATH was placed first, DAA second and CA third. SuperPATH HA was best in 7, second best in 2 and third best in 1 of the 10 outcome parameters. DAA HA was best in 2 and second best in 8 of the 10 outcome parameters. CA HA was best in 1 and third best in 9 of the 10 outcome parameters. In the indirect comparison between SuperPATH HA and DAA HA, SuperPATH HA had a 1.36 point lower visual analog scale at 2 to 7 days postoperatively and a 0.17 lower overall complication rate compared to DAA.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of patients with femoral neck fractures, SuperPATH HA ranked first, DAA HA ranked second and CA HA ranked third. Based on the results, we recommend that trauma surgeons increase their use of minimally invasive hip HA techniques. It should be noted that SuperPATH HA had a significantly lower overall complication rate compared to DAA HA when the minimally invasive technique was chosen.

A Comparison of Surgical Approaches for Hip Hemiarthroplasty Performed for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple hemiarthroplasty (HA) approaches exist for femoral neck fracture (FNF) treatment. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of one approach for postoperative outcomes. This study assessed outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the posterior approach (PA), direct lateral approach (DLA), anterolateral approach (ALA), and the direct anterior approach (DAA) in HA for FNF.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried in February 2024. A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs compared outcomes among approaches using P-scores.

RESULTS

Of 1,481 retrieved studies, 11 RCTs totaling 1,513 FNF patients who underwent HA through a PA (n = 446; 29.5%), DLA (n = 481; 31.8%), ALA (n = 296; 19.6%), or DAA (n = 290; 19.2%) with median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6 (4.5-12.0) months were included for meta-analysis. DAA was associated with statistically increased operative duration (mean difference [MD], 1.89 minutes; 95% CI, 0.08 to 3.69 minutes; p < 0.001) compared with a PA, whereas an ALA was associated with statistically greater blood loss compared with a PA (MD, 5.81 mL; 95% CI, 4.11 to 7.50 mL; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of fracture, dislocation, infection, complications, revision, nor 1-year mortality among approaches. There were also no differences in hip nor pain score improvement at latest follow-up, although with high heterogeneity (I2 = 85.7% and 94.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study found no clinical difference in improvement in pain, function, nor in revision outcomes and operative characteristics among HA approaches for FNF, and each approach had a similar adverse event profile. Despite limited randomized evidence, these findings suggest comparable short-term efficacy and safety of all approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient-related Predictors for the Functional Outcome of SuperPATH Hemiarthroplasty versus Conventional Approach Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Specialist literature lacks evidence that explores associations between patient characteristics and the beneficial treatment effect of SuperPATH hemiarthroplasty (HA) compared with conventional approach (CA) HA. To investigate and identify patient-related predictors of the effect size of the short-term functional outcome of SuperPATH HA and CA HA by performing a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of literature was performed in PubMed, CNKI, CENTRAL of The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar until August 25, 2023. For the continuous outcome parameter Harris hip score (HHS) ≤1 week and 3 months postoperatively, mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A meta-regression analysis was based on random-effects meta-analysis using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for continuous covariates. A total of five RCTs with 404 patients were found. The following predictors of HHS ≤1 week postoperatively were identified: patient age (predictor estimate = 1.29; p < 0.01), patient age groups (predictor estimate = 14.07; p < 0.01), time to mobilization (predictor estimate = 5.51; p < 0.01). The following predictors of HHS 3 months postoperatively were identified: incision length (predictor estimate = -2.12; p < 0.01); intraoperative blood loss (predictor estimate = 0.02; p < 0.01). Patient age, time to mobilization, incision length, and intraoperative blood loss were identified as predictors of the effect size of early postoperative functional outcome as measured by HHS. Elderly patients, particularly those over 70 years of age, appear to benefit from SuperPATH HA. Based on these findings, and taking into account our limitations, we recommend that the use of minimally invasive SuperPATH HA in elderly patients should be more widely considered and not limited to elective THA patients.

Predicting Instability Risk Following Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Hip Fractures in Geriatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Although a rare complication, dislocation following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for a femoral neck hip fracture is associated with increased mortality, readmission, and possible revision surgery. To date many of the specific risk factors have been difficult to demonstrate. Patient factors, surgical factors, as well as morphological factors need to be assessed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to elucidate the risk factors for dislocation of HA following femoral neck hip fractures in the geriatric population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 270 patients who had hip fractures. Medical records between the years 2016 and 2022 informed binomial regression predictive models. The discriminative ability of variables in the final model and acetabular anteversion to predict dislocation was assessed with area under the curve (AUC) estimates.

RESULTS

Center edge angle (odds ratio 1.23), abduction angle (odds ratio 1.17), and depth width ratio (2.96e-11) were significant predictors of dislocation (P = .003, .028, and <.001, respectively). Center edge angle and depth width ratio (<44.1 ° and .298), respectively, were cut scores for risk. Dementia had a high discriminative of ability, as did men (AUC = 0.617, 0.558, respectively). Acetabular anteversion was not predictive of dislocation (P = .259) and theorized anteversion safe zones had poor discriminative ability with AUCs of 0.510 and 0.503, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphological factors related to hip dysplasia and a shallow acetabulum, which can be assessed with a radiograph alone, were found to be predictors of instability following HA in the elderly. Hemiarthroplasty implant design and manufacturer, and also acetabular version did not contribute to instability risk.

Hemiarthroplasty through SuperPATH versus hemiarthroplasty through conventional approaches in patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim was to conduct a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term outcomes of bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA) through SuperPATH and bipolar HA through conventional approaches (CAs) in patients with femoral neck fractures. The following PICO question was formulated: In human participants with femoral neck fractures, are the short-term outcomes of SuperPATH HA better than the short-term outcomes of CAs HA? The following databases were searched until 25 August 2023: PubMed, CNKI, CENTRAL of The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar. Quality assessment of the RCTs was performed, according to the Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool and the recommendations of the GRADE system. Furthermore, we evaluated publication bias with funnel plots. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and a random effects model. Nine RCTs with overall 762 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All 9 RCTs were rated with a moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence of the outcome parameters was rated moderate to very low. The funnel plots were overall broadly symmetrical, possibly indicating low to moderate publication bias. SuperPATH had a longer operation time compared to CAs (MD = 21.79, 95% CI 12.57 to 31.02). SuperPATH decreased incision length (MD = - 4.50; 95% CI - 5.80 to - 3.20), intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 103.96, 95% CI - 150.27 to - 55.66), postoperative drainage volume (MD = - 137.30, 95% CI - 178.74 to - 95.86), time to mobilization (MD = - 3.86; 95% CI - 5.96 to - 1.76), pain VAS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = - 1.81; 95% CI - 2.17 to - 1.45), and hospitalization time (MD = - 4.05; 95% CI - 4.96 to - 3.15). SuperPATH improved HHS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = 11.10; 95% CI 1.65 to 20.54) and HHS 3 months postoperatively (MD = 6.33; 95% CI 3.97 to 8.69). There was no difference in pain VAS 1-3 months postoperatively (MD = - 0.08; 95% CI - 0.22 to 0.05) and HHS 6 months postoperatively (MD = 0.44; 95% CI - 0.11 to 1.00). This is the first meta-analysis comparing SuperPATH HA with CAs HA in patients with femoral neck fractures. SuperPATH HA was superior in the early short-term functional outcome (HHS) compared to CAs HA, reaching minimal clinically important differences. Furthermore, SuperPATH HA showed significantly better results in incision length, blood loss, time to mobilization, pain intensity (VAS), and hospitalization time than CAs HA.