Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Complications and Survivorship After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference by Surgical
Kyle L McCormick1, Michael A Mastroianni1, Nicholas L Kolodychuk1
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
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.
