Does the Primary Surgical Approach Matter When Choosing the Approach for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Abstract

BackgroundMultiple surgical approaches are used for primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study sought to investigate prevalence of discordance of pTHA and rTHA surgical approaches and to evaluate how approach concordance impacts postoperative outcomes. MethodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent rTHA from 2000 to 2021 was conducted at 3 large urban academic centers. Patients who had minimum 1-year follow-up post-rTHA were included and grouped based on whether they received pTHA via a posterior (PA), direct anterior (DA), or laterally based (DL) approach, and by concordance of index rTHA approach with their pTHA approach. Of the 917 patients studied, 839 (91.5%) were included in the concordant cohort and 78 (8.5%) in the discordant cohort. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. ResultsDiscordance was most prevalent in the DA-pTHA subset (29.5%), compared to the DL-pTHA subset (14.7%) or PA-pTHA subset (3.7%). Discordance varied significantly between primary approaches among all revisions, with DA-pTHA patients having the highest discordance rate for patients revised for aseptic loosening (46.3%, P < .001), fracture (22.2%, P < .001), and dislocation (33.3%, P < .001). There were no differences between groups in dislocation rate, re-revision for infection, or re-revision for fracture. ConclusionThe results of this multicenter study showed patients who received pTHA via the DA were more likely to receive rTHA via a discordant approach compared to other primary approaches. Since approach concordance did not impact dislocation, infection, or fracture rates after rTHA, surgeons can feel reassured using a separate approach for rTHA. Level III EvidenceRetrospective Cohort Study.