Abstract
Introduction and Objective
Interest for direct anterior approach (DAA) in hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) has greatly increased in recent years, however which is the best surgical approach in hip replacement treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) is already unclear. The aim of this study is to perform a radiographic and perioperative complications analysis by comparing the direct anterior approach (DAA) with the direct lateral approach (DLA) in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for FNFs.
Materials and Methods
Patients with FNFs surgically treated between 2016–2020 with HHA were enrolled. The radiographical outcomes of DAA and DLA are compared. Several peri-operative and post-operative variables were evaluated: mean surgery time, complications as periprosthetic fractures or episodes of dislocation, the average of post-operative diaphyseal filling of the stem (Canal Fill Index, CFI), the extent of heterotopic ossification (HO) (simplified Broker classification) and metadiaphiseal bone loss (Paprosky classification) within one year from surgery.
Results
86 patients underwent HHA by DAA and 80 patients by DLA. The two groups are qualitatively comparable. No statistically significate differences were showed in all variables analyzed (p>0.05). The average of surgical time of DAA were 61 minutes compared to 67 of DLA. No differences were showed in the post-operative CFI (DAA 0.71 ± 6.1; DLA 0.76 ± 13.5), the extent of the HO (DAA 79.07% low; DLA 75% low) and metadiaphiseal bone loss (DAA Grade I 91.86%; DLA Grade I 93.75%). Regarding perioperative complications, we have discovered only one periprosthetic fracture each group. Although there was no statistically significant difference, we highlighted a higher number of dislocations in the group of DLA (2 episodes vs no one).
Conclusions
In this study we have shown that the DAA is an adequate surgical choice comparing with the classical DLA for FNFs treated with HHA. The analysis of our radiographic parameters and perioperative complications have not shown a significant difference between the two surgical approach. This study is limited by a purely radiographic analysis without addition of clinical parameters.
