The effect of surgical approach in total hip replacement on outcomes: an analysis of 723,904 elective operations from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

Ashley W Blom,Michael R Whitehouse,Linda P Hunt,Michael R Reed,Gulraj S Matharu

doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01672-0

Abstract

BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) is clinically and cost-effective. The surgical approach employed influences the outcome; however, there is little generalisable and robust evidence to guide practice.MethodsA total of 723,904 primary THRs captured in the National Joint Registry, linked to hospital inpatient, mortality and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data with up to 13.75 years follow-up, were analysed. There were seven surgical approach groups: conventional posterior, lateral, anterior and trans-trochanteric groups and minimally invasive posterior, lateral and anterior. Survival methods were used to compare revision rates and 90-day mortality. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards and Flexible Parametric Survival Modelling (FPM). Confounders included age at surgery, sex, risk group (indications additional to osteoarthritis), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, THR fixation, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthetic, body mass index (BMI) and deprivation. PROMs were analysed with regression modelling or non-parametric methods.ResultsUnadjusted analysis showed a higher revision risk than the referent conventional posterior for the conventional lateral, minimally invasive lateral, minimally invasive anterior and trans-trochanteric groups. This persisted with all adjusted FPM and adjusted Cox models, except in the Cox model including BMI where the higher revision rate only persisted for the conventional lateral approach (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 1.12 [95% CI 1.06,1.17] P < 0·001) and trans-trochanteric approaches (HRR 1.48 [95% CI 1.14,1.91] P = 0.003). PROMs demonstrated statistically, but not clinically, significant differences. Self-reported complications were more frequent with the conventional lateral approach, and the risk of 90-day mortality was higher (HRR 1.15 [95%CI 1.01–1.30] P = 0.029).ConclusionsLateral approaches for THR are associated with worse outcomes, including more deaths and revisions, than the posterior approach. We recommend the posterior approach should be considered the current standard approach for THR. Large well-designed studies are needed to assess any potential benefits from using minimally invasive posterior approaches and the conventional anterior approach.

Highlights

Total hip replacement (THR) is a common operation with low revision rates [1], excellent patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [2] and low mortality [3]
Lateral approaches for THR are associated with worse outcomes, including more deaths and revisions, than the posterior approach
Attention has been given to surgical approach over the last decade [6, 7], there is a lack of well-designed studies comparing outcomes when using different hip approaches

Summary

Introduction

Total hip replacement (THR) is a common operation with low revision rates [1], excellent patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [2] and low mortality [3]. Surgical approach is a relatively simple way to effect outcomes. Attention has been given to surgical approach over the last decade (e.g. use of mini-incisions, and more recently the anterior approach) [6, 7], there is a lack of well-designed studies comparing outcomes when using different hip approaches. The type and extent of soft tissue damage and bleeding caused by each approach differs and influences outcome [8,9,10,11]. Total hip replacement (THR) is clinically and cost-effective. The surgical approach employed influences the outcome; there is little generalisable and robust evidence to guide practice

Methods

Results

Conclusion