Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Hip-TEP | Systematic Review

Systematic evaluation of the degree of joint amnesia in patients after total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with posterior approach (PA)

Authors: Fukang Zhang, Zhuangzhuang Zhang, Hua Fan, Qinghao Cheng, Hongzhang Guo

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Objective

A comparative study of joint amnesia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach and posterior approach was conducted through a comprehensive evaluation.

Methods

The literature on joint amnesia in postoperative patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach was systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP databases from the time of library construction until February 13, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software after independent searching, screening of the literature, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies by two investigators in strict accordance with the guidelines for conducting meta-analyses.

Results

A total of one RCT and six cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results indicated that at 1 month postoperatively (MD = 2.08, 95% CI (0.20, 3.96), P = 0.03), 3 months (MD = 10.08, 95% CI (1.20, 18.96), P = 0.03), and 1 year (MD = 6.74, 95% CI (1.30, 12.19), P = 0.02), DAA total hip arthroplasty was associated with better FJS compared to PA at 1 year postoperatively. However, there was no statistical significance in FJS between the two groups at 5 years postoperatively (MD = 1.35, 95% CI (− 0.58, 3.28), P = 0.17).

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that the degree of joint amnesia after THA for DAA was not found to be superior to that of PA. Further, these findings require confirmation by including a larger number of high-quality randomized controlled studies.

Study design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Available only for authorised users

Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Portner N, et al. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip Int. 2018;28(5):498–506.PubMedCrossRef

Enge JD, Castro A, Fonseca E, et al. Main complications of hip arthroplasty: pictorial essay. Radiol Bras. 2020;53(1):56–62.CrossRef

Kenanidis EI, Potoupnis ME, Papavasiliou KA, et al. Re: Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(5):821.PubMedCrossRef

Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, et al. Hip replacement. Lancet. 2018;392(10158):1662–71.PubMedCrossRef

Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):419–34.PubMedCrossRef

Graves SC, Dropkin BM, Keeney BJ, et al. Does surgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(4):971–81.PubMedCrossRef

Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, et al. Does knee awareness differ between different knee arthroplasty prostheses? A matched, case-control, cross-sectional study[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:141.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, et al. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(3):430–6.PubMedCrossRef

Adriani M, Malahias MA, Gu A, et al. Determining the validity, reliability, and utility of the forgotten joint score: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(4):1137–44.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Zhang QL, et al. Clinical effects comparison of total hip arthroplasty with different approaches for treatment of femoral head necrosis. Chin J Jt Surg. 2021;15(02):157–62.

11.

Shen J, Ji R, Yao S, et al. Direct anterior approach provides superior prosthesis adaptability in the early postoperative period of total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg. 2023;15(3):679–86.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Singh V, Zak S, Schwarzkopf R, et al. Forgotten joint score in THA: comparing the direct anterior approach to posterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(9):2513–7.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Domb BG, Bheem R, Monahan PF, et al. Minimum five-year outcomes of hip resurfacing: propensity-score matched against total hip arthroplasty control groups. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(6):2012–5.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Zhang B, Liu S, Liu Z, et al. Clinical and radiologic outcomes in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with Collum Femoris Preserving stems: a comparison between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Maldonado DR, Laseter JR, Kyin C, et al. Direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty leads to superior outcomes at 3-month follow-up when compared with the posterior approach: a matched study using propensity score analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2019;3(12):e19.00118.PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Passano B, Simcox T, Singh V, et al. Does surgical approach to the hip play a role in same-day discharge outcomes? J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7 Suppl 2):S294–9.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Nilsson IM. Clinical pharmacology of aminocaproic and tranexamic acids. J Clin Pathol Suppl (R Coll Pathol). 1980;14:41–7.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Matsumoto T, Kaneuji A, Hiejima Y, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ): a patient-based evaluation tool for hip-joint disease. The Subcommittee on Hip Disease Evaluation of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17(1):25–38.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Sansone V, Fennema P, Applefield RC, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Italian language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as an outcome measure for total knee arthroplasty in an Italian population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, et al. Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Jt J. 2017;99(B(2)):218–24.CrossRef

23.

Pietrzak J, Maharaj Z, Cakic JN. Good long-term outcomes for Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty in South Africa. J Orthop. 2020;22:352–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Liu H, Yin L, Li J, et al. Minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty in the supine position: a prospective study based on early postoperative outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):230.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

25.

Thienpont E, Vanden BA, Schwab PE, et al. Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the “Forgotten Joint” Score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(10):3346–51.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M, et al. Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(2):257–64.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Thompson SM, Salmon LJ, Webb JM, et al. Construct validity and test re-test reliability of the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(11):1902–5.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ozaki Y, Baba T, Homma Y, et al. Posterior versus direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12. SICOT J. 2018;4:54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Agten CA, Sutter R, Dora C, et al. MR imaging of soft tissue alterations after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of classic surgical approaches. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(3):1312–21.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Sadekar VN, Datir S, Allgar V, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcomes for navigated kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty versus navigated mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty: the MaKKRO trial. Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(11):945–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Nedopil AJ. The transition to an anterior-based muscle sparing approach improves early postoperative function but is associated with a learning curve. J Vis Exp. 2022;187:e63948.

32.

Micicoi G, de Dompsure RB, Micicoi L, et al. One-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty versus unilateral total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective case-matched study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020;106(3):577–81.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Shiomoto K, Hamai S, Motomura G, et al. Influencing factors for joint perception after total hip arthroplasty: Asian Cohort Study. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(5):1307–14.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Ranawat CS, Meftah M, Potter HG, et al. The posterior approach in THR: assuring capsular stability. Orthopedics. 2011;34(9):e452–5.PubMedCrossRef

35.

McLawhorn AS, Potter HG, Cross MB, et al. Posterior soft tissue repair after primary THA is durable at mid-term followup: A Prospective MRI Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3183–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Gazendam A, Bozzo A, Ekhtiari S, et al. Short-term outcomes vary by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022;142(10):2893–902.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Okoroha KR, Lu Y, Nwachukwu BU, et al. How should we define clinically significant improvement on patient-reported outcomes measurement information system test for patients undergoing knee meniscal surgery? Arthroscopy. 2020;36(1):241–50.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Nwachukwu BU, Chang B, Rotter BZ, et al. Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after revision hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(6):1862–8.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Levy DM, Kuhns BD, Chahal J, et al. Hip arthroscopy outcomes with respect to patient acceptable symptomatic state and minimal clinically important difference. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(9):1877–86.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Gowd AK, Lalehzarian SP, Liu JN, et al. Factors associated with clinically significant patient-reported outcomes after primary arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(5):1567–75.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Doganay EB, Leung YY, Pohl C, et al. Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch Working Group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(1):194–202.CrossRef

42.

Longo UG, De Salvatore S, Piergentili I, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the forgotten joint score 12. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2267.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Title: Systematic evaluation of the degree of joint amnesia in patients after total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with posterior approach (PA)
Authors: Fukang Zhang
Zhuangzhuang Zhang
Hua Fan
Qinghao Cheng
Hongzhang Guo
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Amnesia
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04504-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Systematic evaluation of the degree of joint amnesia in patients after total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with posterior approach (PA)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study design

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study design

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Reconstruction of medial meniscus posterior portion deficiency in pigs with an autologous patellar tendon graft: an experimental study

One-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective propensity score study

Comparative analysis of bone turnover markers in bone marrow and peripheral blood: implications for osteoporosis

Icariin promotes bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells osteogenic differentiation via the mTOR/autophagy pathway to improve ketogenic diet-associated osteoporosis

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Circ_0000376 regulates miR-577/HK2/LDHA signaling pathway to promote the growth, invasion and glycolysis of osteosarcoma