Direct Anterior Approach in Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: Do Short-Term Outcomes Differ with Approach?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Complications and Survivorship After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference by Surgical Approach?

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has traditionally been performed through the posterolateral approach (PA). Anterior approaches (AA) for rTHA are increasingly being utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare complications and survivorship from re-revision and reoperation after aseptic rTHA performed using an AA versus a PA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent aseptic rTHA either through an AA (direct anterior approach [DAA], anterior-based muscle sparing [ABMS]) or PA from January 2017 to December 2021. There were 116 patients who underwent AA-rTHA (DAA 50, ABMS 66) or PA-rTHA (n = 105). Patient demographics, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

The most common indication in both groups was aseptic loosening (n = 26, 22.4% AA, n = 28, 26.7% PA). Acetabular revision alone was most common in the AA group (n = 33, 28.4%), while both components were most commonly revised in the PA groups (n = 47, 44.8%). In all the AA-rTHA group, the index total hip arthroplasty was performed through a PA in 51% of patients, while the PA-rTHA group had the index procedure performed via AA in 4.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in re-revision rate between the DAA, ABMS, or PA groups (9.55 versus 5.3% versus 11.4%, respectively, P = .11). The most common overall reason for re-revision was persistent instability, with no difference in incidence of postoperative hip dislocation (n = 4, 6.8% DAA, n = 3, 5.3%, n = 10, 9.5% PA; P = .31).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates no difference in complication or re-revision survivorship after aseptic rTHA performed through a DAA, ABMS approach, or PA, nor between anterior or posterior-based approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

A Comparison of Surgical Approaches for Hip Hemiarthroplasty Performed for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple hemiarthroplasty (HA) approaches exist for femoral neck fracture (FNF) treatment. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of one approach for postoperative outcomes. This study assessed outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the posterior approach (PA), direct lateral approach (DLA), anterolateral approach (ALA), and the direct anterior approach (DAA) in HA for FNF.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried in February 2024. A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs compared outcomes among approaches using P-scores.

RESULTS

Of 1,481 retrieved studies, 11 RCTs totaling 1,513 FNF patients who underwent HA through a PA (n = 446; 29.5%), DLA (n = 481; 31.8%), ALA (n = 296; 19.6%), or DAA (n = 290; 19.2%) with median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6 (4.5-12.0) months were included for meta-analysis. DAA was associated with statistically increased operative duration (mean difference [MD], 1.89 minutes; 95% CI, 0.08 to 3.69 minutes; p < 0.001) compared with a PA, whereas an ALA was associated with statistically greater blood loss compared with a PA (MD, 5.81 mL; 95% CI, 4.11 to 7.50 mL; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of fracture, dislocation, infection, complications, revision, nor 1-year mortality among approaches. There were also no differences in hip nor pain score improvement at latest follow-up, although with high heterogeneity (I2 = 85.7% and 94.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study found no clinical difference in improvement in pain, function, nor in revision outcomes and operative characteristics among HA approaches for FNF, and each approach had a similar adverse event profile. Despite limited randomized evidence, these findings suggest comparable short-term efficacy and safety of all approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient-related Predictors for the Functional Outcome of SuperPATH Hemiarthroplasty versus Conventional Approach Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Specialist literature lacks evidence that explores associations between patient characteristics and the beneficial treatment effect of SuperPATH hemiarthroplasty (HA) compared with conventional approach (CA) HA. To investigate and identify patient-related predictors of the effect size of the short-term functional outcome of SuperPATH HA and CA HA by performing a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of literature was performed in PubMed, CNKI, CENTRAL of The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar until August 25, 2023. For the continuous outcome parameter Harris hip score (HHS) ≤1 week and 3 months postoperatively, mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A meta-regression analysis was based on random-effects meta-analysis using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for continuous covariates. A total of five RCTs with 404 patients were found. The following predictors of HHS ≤1 week postoperatively were identified: patient age (predictor estimate = 1.29; p < 0.01), patient age groups (predictor estimate = 14.07; p < 0.01), time to mobilization (predictor estimate = 5.51; p < 0.01). The following predictors of HHS 3 months postoperatively were identified: incision length (predictor estimate = -2.12; p < 0.01); intraoperative blood loss (predictor estimate = 0.02; p < 0.01). Patient age, time to mobilization, incision length, and intraoperative blood loss were identified as predictors of the effect size of early postoperative functional outcome as measured by HHS. Elderly patients, particularly those over 70 years of age, appear to benefit from SuperPATH HA. Based on these findings, and taking into account our limitations, we recommend that the use of minimally invasive SuperPATH HA in elderly patients should be more widely considered and not limited to elective THA patients.

Predicting Instability Risk Following Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Hip Fractures in Geriatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Although a rare complication, dislocation following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for a femoral neck hip fracture is associated with increased mortality, readmission, and possible revision surgery. To date many of the specific risk factors have been difficult to demonstrate. Patient factors, surgical factors, as well as morphological factors need to be assessed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to elucidate the risk factors for dislocation of HA following femoral neck hip fractures in the geriatric population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 270 patients who had hip fractures. Medical records between the years 2016 and 2022 informed binomial regression predictive models. The discriminative ability of variables in the final model and acetabular anteversion to predict dislocation was assessed with area under the curve (AUC) estimates.

RESULTS

Center edge angle (odds ratio 1.23), abduction angle (odds ratio 1.17), and depth width ratio (2.96e-11) were significant predictors of dislocation (P = .003, .028, and <.001, respectively). Center edge angle and depth width ratio (<44.1 ° and .298), respectively, were cut scores for risk. Dementia had a high discriminative of ability, as did men (AUC = 0.617, 0.558, respectively). Acetabular anteversion was not predictive of dislocation (P = .259) and theorized anteversion safe zones had poor discriminative ability with AUCs of 0.510 and 0.503, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphological factors related to hip dysplasia and a shallow acetabulum, which can be assessed with a radiograph alone, were found to be predictors of instability following HA in the elderly. Hemiarthroplasty implant design and manufacturer, and also acetabular version did not contribute to instability risk.

Hemiarthroplasty through SuperPATH versus hemiarthroplasty through conventional approaches in patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim was to conduct a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term outcomes of bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA) through SuperPATH and bipolar HA through conventional approaches (CAs) in patients with femoral neck fractures. The following PICO question was formulated: In human participants with femoral neck fractures, are the short-term outcomes of SuperPATH HA better than the short-term outcomes of CAs HA? The following databases were searched until 25 August 2023: PubMed, CNKI, CENTRAL of The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar. Quality assessment of the RCTs was performed, according to the Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool and the recommendations of the GRADE system. Furthermore, we evaluated publication bias with funnel plots. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and a random effects model. Nine RCTs with overall 762 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All 9 RCTs were rated with a moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence of the outcome parameters was rated moderate to very low. The funnel plots were overall broadly symmetrical, possibly indicating low to moderate publication bias. SuperPATH had a longer operation time compared to CAs (MD = 21.79, 95% CI 12.57 to 31.02). SuperPATH decreased incision length (MD = - 4.50; 95% CI - 5.80 to - 3.20), intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 103.96, 95% CI - 150.27 to - 55.66), postoperative drainage volume (MD = - 137.30, 95% CI - 178.74 to - 95.86), time to mobilization (MD = - 3.86; 95% CI - 5.96 to - 1.76), pain VAS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = - 1.81; 95% CI - 2.17 to - 1.45), and hospitalization time (MD = - 4.05; 95% CI - 4.96 to - 3.15). SuperPATH improved HHS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = 11.10; 95% CI 1.65 to 20.54) and HHS 3 months postoperatively (MD = 6.33; 95% CI 3.97 to 8.69). There was no difference in pain VAS 1-3 months postoperatively (MD = - 0.08; 95% CI - 0.22 to 0.05) and HHS 6 months postoperatively (MD = 0.44; 95% CI - 0.11 to 1.00). This is the first meta-analysis comparing SuperPATH HA with CAs HA in patients with femoral neck fractures. SuperPATH HA was superior in the early short-term functional outcome (HHS) compared to CAs HA, reaching minimal clinically important differences. Furthermore, SuperPATH HA showed significantly better results in incision length, blood loss, time to mobilization, pain intensity (VAS), and hospitalization time than CAs HA.