Revision risk by using the direct superior approach (DSA) for total hip arthroplasty compared with postero-lateral approach: early nationwide results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI)

Background and purpose: The direct superior approach (DSA) is a modification of the classic posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA), in which the iliotibial band and short external rotators are spared. The revision rate of the DSA has not been investigated previously using arthroplasty registry data. We examined the reasons and risk of revision of the DSA, compared with the direct anterior approach (DAA) and PLA. Patients and methods: In this population-based cohort study we included 175,543 primary THAs performed between 2014 and 2020 (PLA, n = 117,576; DAA, n = 56,626;... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Bart van Dooren
Rinne M Peters
Harmen B Ettema
B Willem Schreurs
Liza N van Steenbergen
Stefan B T Bolder
Wierd P Zijlstra
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2023
Reihe/Periodikum: Acta Orthopaedica, Vol 94 (2023)
Verlag/Hrsg.: Medical Journals Sweden
Schlagwörter: Arthroplasty / Direct superior approach / Dislocation / Hip / Surgical approach / Orthopedic surgery / RD701-811
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28985144
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11959

Background and purpose: The direct superior approach (DSA) is a modification of the classic posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA), in which the iliotibial band and short external rotators are spared. The revision rate of the DSA has not been investigated previously using arthroplasty registry data. We examined the reasons and risk of revision of the DSA, compared with the direct anterior approach (DAA) and PLA. Patients and methods: In this population-based cohort study we included 175,543 primary THAs performed between 2014 and 2020 (PLA, n = 117,576; DAA, n = 56,626; DSA, n = 1,341). Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, adjusted for potential confounders, were performed. Results: After 3 years, crude revision rates due to any reason were 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–3.3) for DSA, and 2.9% (CI 2.8–3.0) for PLA. Crude dislocation revision rates were 0.3% (CI 0.1–0.8) for DSA, versus 1.0% (CI 0.9–1.0) for PLA. Dislocation revision rate for DSA did not differ from DAA (0.3% [CI 0.2–0.3]). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated no overall difference in revision rates for the DSA (HR 0.6 [CI 0.4–1.09) compared with the PLA. Lower risk of revision due to dislocation was found in patients operated on through the DSA (HR 0.3 [0.1–0.9]) compared with the PLA. Conclusion: Early nationwide results suggest that the DSA for total hip arthroplasty seems to show a tendency towards a lower risk of revision for dislocation but no overall reduced revision risk compared with the PLA.