Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Femoral neck fractures are an epidemiologically significant issue with major effects on patients and health care systems, as they account for a large percentage of bone injuries in the elderly. Hip hemiarthroplasty is a common surgical procedure in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures. Several surgical approaches may be used to access the hip joint in case of femoral neck fractures, each with its own benefits and potential drawbacks, but none of them has consistently been found to be superior to the others. This article aims to systematically review and compare the different approaches in terms of the complication rate at the last follow-up. Methods: an in-depth search on PubMed/Scopus/Web of Science databases and a cross-referencing search was carried out concerning the articles comparing different approaches in hemiarthroplasty and reporting detailed data. Results: A total of 97,576 hips were included: 1030 treated with a direct anterior approach, 4131 with an anterolateral approach, 59,110 with a direct lateral approach, and 33,007 with a posterolateral approach. Comparing the different approaches, significant differences were found in both the overall complication rate and the rate of revision surgery performed (p < 0.05). In particular, the posterolateral approach showed a significantly higher complication rate than the lateral approach (8.4% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the dislocation rate in the posterolateral group was significantly higher than in the other three groups considered (p < 0.026). However, the posterolateral group showed less blood loss than the anterolateral group (p < 0.001), a lower intraoperative fractures rate than the direct anterior group (p < 0.035), and shorter mean operative time than the direct lateral group (p < 0.018). Conclusions: The posterolateral approach showed a higher complication rate than direct lateral approach and a higher prosthetic dislocation rate than the other three types of surgical approaches. On the other hand, patients treated with posterolateral approach showed better outcomes in other parameters considered, such as mean operative time, mean blood loss and intraoperative fractures rate. The knowledge of the limitations of each approach and the most common associated complications can lead to choosing a surgical technique based on the patient's individual risk.

Learning curve in tissue sparing total hip replacement: comparison between different approaches

BACKGROUND

The tissue sparing surgery (TSS) concept means not only smaller incisions but also less tissue disruption, allowing decreased blood loss and improved function. However, TSS techniques can result in more complications related to the learning curve. The aim of this study was to compare the learning curve of an experienced surgeon with different TSS approaches for total hip replacement (THR) from a clinical and surgical point of view, focussing especially on complications related to the use of different geometric stems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients scheduled to be operated for a primary THR were enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to surgery by one of three different TSS approaches: lateral with mini incision (group A), minimally invasive anterior (group B) and minimally invasive antero-lateral (group C). Results from the three TSS groups were compared with a control group of 149 patients (group D).

RESULTS

Our results reveal significantly reduced blood loss in the TSS groups compared with the control group, with no differences between the TSS groups. We found better early functional scores in the two minimally invasive groups (anterior and anterolateral), and a lower rate of complications with the antero-lateral TSS approach.

CONCLUSION

The antero-lateral TSS approach seems to be safer and less demanding than standard THR surgery, and is suitable for use with different stems.