Restoring hip biomechanics during the learning curve of a novice surgeon: Direct anterior approach vs posterior approach

Abstract

IntroductionIt remains controversial whether the direct anterior approach (DAA) or the posterior approach (PA) allows better restoration of hip biomechanics after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Besides, it is not certain which approach is best for a novice surgeon to avoid implant malposition, neither during the learning curve nor once the curve plateau has been reached. MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of THAs operated on between 2014 and 2019 by a single novice surgeon (DAA, n = 187; PA, n = 184). The surgeon used both approaches, and thus went through parallel learning curves. ResultsWhile the DAA presented a greater number of acetabular cup implantations within Lewinnek's “safe zone” for inclination (84.5% vs. 79.3%; p = 0.003), the PA returned superior results for anteversion (77.7% vs. 68.4%; p = 0.000). The PA showed a tendency to verticalize acetabular cups, while the DAA tended to antevert them. The DAA resulted in fewer patients with leg length discrepancy (3.2% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.041). No differences were found in stem coronal alignment or femoral offset. ConclusionBoth approaches are safe and reliable for restoring hip biomechanics through THA surgery during the learning curve of a novice hip surgeon. Similar radiological outcomes are also seen once the surgeon has reached the learning curve plateau.