Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fractures: Posterior or Direct Lateral Approach? Advantages and Disadvantages

Several approaches are used to access the hip joint; most common are the direct lateral and posterior. Little consensus exists on which to use when treating hip fractures.

To compare short-term complications, postoperative ambulation, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of direct lateral vs. posterior approaches in hemiarthroplasty for acute hip fractures.

We conducted a retrospective clinical trial with 260 patients who underwent bipolar hemiarthroplasty in the direct lateral or posterior approach (166 and 94, respectively) between January 2017 and December 2018. The clinical data included short-term complications: prosthetic dislocation, periprosthetic fractures, and infection. Postoperative ambulation was collected 6 weeks postoperatively; PROMS were collected for 173 patients at 2 years follow-up.

There were six dislocations overall, average time to dislocation was 22 days postoperative (range 4-34). Five dislocations were after the posterior approach (5.3%) and one after direct lateral (0.6%) (P = 0.01). At 6 weeks follow-up, inability to walk was found in 16.9% of the direct lateral group and 6.4% of the posterior approach group (P = 0.02). In the posterior approach group, 76% could walk more than 20 meters; only half of the direct lateral group could (P = 0.0002). At 2 years follow-up, PROMS did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups.

Posterior approach for hemiarthroplasty following femoral neck fractures allows superior ambulation to the direct lateral approach only for the short-term. However, no long-term clinical advantage was found. This short-term benefit does not justify the increased dislocation rate in the posterior approach.