1.
Pan X, Clark SC, Simon KN, et al. How do Rates of Return to Sports Following Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Compare to Other Approaches? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthopedic Reviews. 2024;16. doi:10.52965/001c.124486
Download all (6)
  • Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow chart for screening studies in this systematic review
  • Figure 2. A) Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) assessment in stoplight representation and bar graph summary for all studies pertaining to return to sport. B) ROBINS I assessment in stoplight representation and bar graph summary for all studies pertaining to return to work
  • Figure 3. Forest plot representation of pooled rate of RTS weighted by number of patients.
  • Figure 4. Forest plot representation of pooled rate of return to same sport weighted by number of patients. Study author, year of publication, country of origin, number of patients per study are reported.
  • Figure 5. Forest plot representation of pooled RTS to the same intensity weighted by number of patients.
  • Figure 6. Funnel plot representation of (A) rates of RTS, (B)rates of return to same sport, and (C) rates of RTS to the same intensity.

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of literature analyzing data for return to sport (RTS) and return to work (RTW) in the setting of direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Objective

The aims of this systematic review are to identify existing literature and to aggregate rates of RTS/RTW following DAA THA in a meta-analysis.

Methods

A query of major databases yielded 1819 initial studies. A random-effects model approach was implemented for meta-analysis. Moderator effects were assessed with respect to patient demographics and functional outcomes.

Results

Five studies reporting RTS after DAA THA were identified, representing a total of 204 patients with a mean age of 60.2±7.5 years and mean follow up of 31.8±9.5 months. Pooled rate of RTS was 76%(95% confidence interval [CI], 63%-86%;range 58%-100%). Pooled rate of return to the same sport was 77%(95%CI, 64%-86%;range of 62%-100%). Pooled rate of RTS to the same intensity was 58%(95%CI, 48%-68%;range of 41%-68%). Meta-regression demonstrated no significant correlations between independent variables and RTS characteristics. Three studies reported RTW rates. Rates of RTW within 3-months were 30%, 45%, and 60%. One study reported rate of RTW of 79% at 6-months and 87% at 12-months. One study demonstrated a mean time to RTW of 38±24.8 days.

Conclusion

Pooled rate of RTS is satisfactory following DAA THA and are comparable to rates of RTS aggregated without delineating surgical approach. Data supporting RTW rates following DAA THA limited, and thus more primary studies are needed to establish if this approach confers an advantage of faster RTS/RTW.

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been well established as a safe and cost-effective treatment for end stage osteoarthritis of the hip with continuous year over year increases in surgical volume.1,2 The posterior, lateral, and anterior approaches represent the broad, overarching categories of modern THAs, the most common being a posterior approach (PA).3,4 Although an optimal technique has not been established, each approach demonstrates unique advantages. Traditional PA THAs necessitates intraoperative external rotator muscle and joint capsule violation but allows for excellent femoral visualization and decreased rates of intra-operative fracture.5,6 Recently, the direct anterior approach (DAA) has gained popularity, as it is muscle sparing, and empirical evidence has supported lower rates of postoperative dislocation.5,7–9 Proponents of DAA THA also have suggested improved time to recovery, although these benefits have not been universally accepted.10,11

Faster rates of return to ambulation, specifically in the immediate postoperative period, have been established in prospective studies comparing DAA to other common approaches.12,13 However, the broader clinical relevance, such as return to sports (RTS) and return to work (RTW), of these findings remains to be demonstrated. Rates of RTS/RTW have been well document and aggregated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to THA of all approaches.14,15 However, limited studies analyzing data for RTS/RTW exclusively in DAA THAs exist.

Therefore, the aims of this systematic review are to identify existing literature demonstrating RTS/RTW in DAA THA and to aggregate rates of RTS/RTW in a meta-analysis. Given the purported advantages of the DAA approach, we hypothesize that the rates of RTS/RTW would be modestly greater compared to rates reported in previous systematic reviews pooling data from all THA approaches.

Materials and Methods

Ethical Considerations

Prior to initiating this systematic review, registration with PROSPERO was conducted (CRD42023448251). All steps of this study were conducted in strict adherence to Cochrane Methods16 guidelines for systematic reviews.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive query was conducted by the Mayo Clinic Library on March 4, 2024 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1). Results were limited to English Language. No date limits for the search were applied. Databases searched (and their content coverage dates) were Ovid MEDLINE(R) (1946+ including epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations), Ovid Embase (1974+), Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991+), Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005+), Web of Science Core Collection via Clarivate Analytics (1975+), and Scopus via Elsevier (1970+).

A diagram of a company Description automatically generated
Figure 1.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow chart for screening studies in this systematic review

The search strategies were designed and conducted by a medical librarian with input from the study investigators. Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used. The actual strategies listing all search terms used and how they are combined is available in the supplemental material. (Appendix)

Selection criteria

A total of 1819 studies were initially identified and screened independently by two authors (X.P. and S.C.) in Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Disagreements at any step of the screening process were resolved by a third independent reviewer (M.H.). Inclusion criteria comprised of the following: clinical studies (levels of evidence 1-4) studies including all patients undergoing DAA THA, studies demonstrating follow up reporting rates of RTS/RTW, and studies published in the English language. Exclusion criteria comprised of the following: studies publishing on approaches other than DAA, studies in which data pertaining to RTS/RTW was unavailable or inseparable from different approaches, narrative reviews, other systematic reviews, and biomechanical studies. Importantly, studies published by the same author were carefully evaluated to ensure limited to nonexistent population duplication.

Statistical analysis

Meta analysis was conducted with respect to RTS. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects model17 approach was implemented to account for both within-study and between-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was reported as Higgens and Thompson’s I2,18 between study variance τ,2 and Cochran’s Q (χ25). Heterogeneity was categorized into either low (25%), medium (50%) and high (%) thresholds based on previously reported values by Higgens et al.19 Moderator effects were assessed with respects to average age, sex, body mass index (BMI), mean follow up time, preoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome (HOOS) scores, and preoperative UCLA activity scale on rates of RTS, return to same sport, and RTS at same intensity. Results of pooled rates of RTS, return to same sport, and RTS to same intensity were tabulated into forest plots. Funnel plots were generated to provide a visual representation of study heterogeneity. Rates of RTW and associated characteristics were unable to be pooled for meta-analysis due to lack of robust data. A p-value of <0.05 was determined to be significant. All statistical analyses were conducted in the R statistical environment (version 4.3.1, Vienna Austria, 2023) utilizing the meta and metafor packages concurrently.

Risk of Bias

All included studies were assessed for risk of bias utilizing the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) tool.20,21 ROBINS I implements a systematic, stepwise assessment of bias within seven different domains. Each domain receives a designation of “low,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “critical” risk of bias to then assess the overall risk of bias, which itself receives one of the four designations. Risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors (X.P. and K.S.). Results are tabulated in a stop-light representation of all domains and overall risk of bias along with a visual breakdown of proportions (Figure 2).

A group of red yellow and green circles Description automatically generated
Figure 2.A) Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) assessment in stoplight representation and bar graph summary for all studies pertaining to return to sport. B) ROBINS I assessment in stoplight representation and bar graph summary for all studies pertaining to return to work

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction (X.P., K.S) to ensure data fidelity in a standardized excel spreadsheet. Study characteristics, patient demographics, postoperative rehabilitation protocol, description of sports, description of work, rates of RTS/RTW, postoperative restrictions, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), were isolated from full manuscripts (Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1.Population and follow up characteristics of studies included in the systematic review
Author Study Design, Level of Evidence Year Country Age (mean years ± SD) Sex (Male n [%]) BMI (Mean ± SD) Follow up (mean months ± SD) or (total months)
Return to Sport (RTS)
Nogier et al. (1)* Case Series, 4 2023 France 30.0 ± 8.3 2 (33.3%) 19.8 ± 2.8 43.2 ± 14.4
Nogier et al. (2)* Case Series, 4 2023 France 50.5 ± 14.9 4 (18.2%) 20.7 ± 2.9 40.8 ± 16.8
Mead et al. Case Control, 3 2022 United States 67.0 ± 8.9 21 (32%) 24.6 ± 3.9 30 ± 10.3
Yun et al. Case Series, 4 2021 United States 50.0 ± 10.0 3 (21.4%) NR 60 ± 4
Batailler et al. (Bilateral DAA THA) Case Control, 3 2019 France 61.8 ± 10 21 (65.6%) 25.9 ± 4 28.9 ± 15
Batailler et al. (Unilateral DAA THA) Case Control, 3 2019 France 60.7 ± 9.8 42 (65.6%) 26 ± 4.1 20.9 ± 10.8
Return to Work (RTW)
Latijnhouwerse et al. Case Control, 3 2022 Netherlands 68.0 ± 10.0 236 (37.9%) 27.0 ± 4.0 12
Poehling et al. Prospective Cohort, 3 2017 United States 63.0 ± 9.3 26 (52.0%) 31.0 ± 5.11 1.5
Poehling et al. Case Control, 3 2015 United States 64.8 ± 12.4 59 (46.8%) 30.0 ± 5.5 1.5

*Separate studies published by the same author during the same year
†Populations belonging to the same study that were unable to be combined
BMI, body mass index; NR, not reported; RTS, return to sport; RTW, return to work; SD, standard deviation

Table 2.Study Design, RTW/RTS characteristics, and Study Outcomes
Author Sport/Work Characteristics Factors Affecting RTS/RTW Comparative Outcomes
RTS
Nogier et al. (1)* All patients were professional ballet dancers Three dancers reporting >12 months to RTS exhibited little to no preoperative external rotation of hip. NR
Nogier et al. (2)* All patients were current or former professional ballet dancers No significant drivers of RTS with respect to independent variables. Most cited reasons for not returning to sport: loss of interest (6/6), fear of injury (2/6), pain or discomfort on contralateral hip (1/6), loss of pleasure (1/6). NR
Mead et al. Types of recreational activity reported for DAA
Low impact n (%)
- Walking: 26 (40%)
- Cycling: 18 (28%)
- Swimming: 10 (15%)
- Golf: 7 (11%)
- Yoga: 5 (8%)
- Gardening: 4 (6%)
- Animal training: 2 (3%)
- Fishing: 1 (2%)
- Sailing: 1 (2%)
- Snowshoeing: 1 (2%)
% Activity: 61%
High Impact n [%]
- Exercise class: 19 (29%)
- Hiking: 9 (14%)
- Weightlifting: 9 (14%)
- Running: 3 (5%)
- Skiing: 2 (3%)
- Tae Kwon do: 1 (2%)
- Tennis: 1 (2%)
- Surfing: 1 (2%)
- Dance: 1 (2%)
- Kayak: 1 (2%)
% Activity: 39%
28% of patients in DAA and 4% of patients in PA group self-reported surgical approach influenced their ability to return to sport (p <0.01) Rate of RTS between DAA and PA groups did not differ. Higher percentage of patients returned to same sport in DAA group (p = 0.10).
Yun et al. All patients were yoga instructors NR NR
Batailler et al. Majority sports (82%) were low impact sports according to American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) recommendations Percentage of patients citing reasons for not returning to sport, returning at a lower intensity, or returning to another sport
Bilateral THA
Pain: 10%
Stiffness: 5%
Fear of dislocation: 5%
Avoid wear: ~2.5%
Physician Recommendation: ~6%
No motivation: ~24%
Other: ~14%
Unilateral THA
Pain: ~2.5%
Stiffness: < 2%
Fear of dislocation: < 2%
Avoid wear: < 2%
Physician Recommendation: 0%
No motivation: ~4.5%
Other: ~6%
Most cited reason for no RTS or RTS at lower intensity was pain unrelated to the hip joint (i.e., knee, lower back)
Motivation was the only statistically significant variable influencing RTS which differed between bilateral and unilateral cohort
RTW
Latijnhouwerse et al. DAA Working hours,
Mean ± SD: 31.0 ± 12.0
Physical workload n (%):
Light: 64 (40.0%)
Medium: 66 (41.0%)
Heavy: 31 (19.0)
Employment n (%):
Employed: 134 (82.0%)
Self-employed: 29 (18.0%)
On Sick leave: 40 (24.0%)
Work restrictions: 130 (88.0%)
NR Difference in rates of RTW and work restrictions postoperatively not statistically significant between DAA and PLA group
Poehling et al. (2017) NR NR No statistically significant difference in rate of RTW and mean time to RTW between DAA and MPA group
Poehling et al. (2015) NR NR DAA RTW (n = 36)
Yes: 11 (30.0%)
No: 25 (69.0%)
Missing: n = 90

MPA RTW (n =35)
Yes: 1 (2.0%)
No: 34 (97.0%)
Missing: n = 61
p < 0.01

*Separate studies published by the same author during the same year
DAA, direct anterior approach; MPA, miniposterior approach; NR, not reported; PA, Posterior Approach; PLA, posterolateral approach; RTS, return to sport; RTW, return to work; THA, total hip arthroplasty

Results

Rate of Return to Sport

Five studies22–26 reporting rates of RTS after DAA THA were identified, representing a total of 204 patients with a weighted mean age of 60.2 ± 7.5 years and weighted mean follow up of 31.8 ± 9.5 months. Across five studies, pooled rate of RTS was 76% (95% CI, 63%-86%) with a range of 58%-100%; heterogeneity was moderate with an I2 of 64% (Figure 3). Across five studies, pooled rate of return to the same sport was 77% (95% CI, 64%-86%) with a range of 62%-100%; heterogeneity was moderate with an I2 of 47% (Figure 4). Across four studies, pooled rate of RTS to the same intensity was 58% (95% CI, 48%-68%) with a range of 41%-68%; heterogeneity was low with an of I2 0% (Figure 5). A graphical funnel plot representation of publication bias is found in Figure 6. Analysis of the funnel plot was asymmetric with respects to rate of RTS (p = 0.01) and rate of return to same sports (p = 0.01) and symmetric with respects to RTS to same intensity (p = 0.67). The unilateral DAA THA patient group from Batallier et al.26 was the only study population to fall outside of the 95% confidence window on the funnel plot.

A close-up of a graph Description automatically generated
Figure 3.Forest plot representation of pooled rate of RTS weighted by number of patients.

Study author, year of publication, country of origin, number of patients per study are reported. Forest plot square size approximates the weight of each given study. RTS, return to sport; CI, confidence interval; I2, Higgens and Thompson’s heterogeneity; τ,2 between study variance; χ25, Cochrans Q.

A screenshot of a graph Description automatically generated
Figure 4.Forest plot representation of pooled rate of return to same sport weighted by number of patients. Study author, year of publication, country of origin, number of patients per study are reported.

Forest plot square size approximates the weight of each given study. RTS, return to sport; CI, confidence interval. I2, Higgens and Thompson’s heterogeneity; τ,2 between study variance; χ25, Cochrans Q.

A close-up of a graph Description automatically generated
Figure 5.Forest plot representation of pooled RTS to the same intensity weighted by number of patients.

Study author, year of publication, country of origin, number of patients per study are reported. Forest plot square size approximates the weight of each given study. RTS, return to sport; CI, confidence interval. I2, Higgens and Thompson’s heterogeneity; τ,2 between study variance; χ25, Cochrans Q.

A diagram of a triangle Description automatically generated
Figure 6.Funnel plot representation of (A) rates of RTS, (B)rates of return to same sport, and (C) rates of RTS to the same intensity.

RTS, return to sport. Each dot represents the log rate of RTS plotted against the standard error of each individual study. Gray represents areas outside of the 95% confidence individual.

Mean Time to RTS

Three studies reported time to RTS. Nogier et al.23 reported a mean time to RTS of 5.1 ± 3.9 months (range 1-14 months). Yun et al.25 reported a mean time to RTS of 2.0 ± 3.0 months (range 1-12 months). Batailler et al.26 reported a mean time to RTS of 5.4 ± 5.1 months in unilateral THA patients and a mean time to RTS of 4.2 ± 2.7 months in bilateral THA patients. This difference in mean time to RTS was not statistically significant.

Factors affecting RTS

Meta-regression analysis demonstrated no statistically significant correlations between average age, sex, BMI, mean follow up time, preoperative (HOOS) scores, and preoperative UCLA activity scale on rates of RTS, return to same sport, or RTS at same intensity (p > 0.22).

Nogier et al.23 reported patient reasons for not RTS were loss of interest, fear of injury, pain or discomfort on the contralateral hip, and loss of pleasure in dance. A univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted with respect to independent variables of sex, age, BMI, indication for surgery, laterality of THA, femoral head size, years of sporting experience, preoperative sporting hours, and preoperative sporting intensity. No statistical significance was demonstrated between independent variables and rate of RTS.

Mead et al.24 reported that 28% of patients self-reported that surgical approach affected their ability to RTS in comparison to 4% of patients in a posterior approach group. In the patient population of Batailler et al26 the most common reason for not returning to the same sport or to a lower intensity was physical pain unrelated to the hip (i.e. knee and lower back).

Postoperative complications

Four out of the five studies did not disclose any postoperative complications or surgical revisions. Nogier et al.23 demonstrated complications in 3 patients (11.5%). One patient underwent implant removal and subsequent head and cup revision in the setting of severe leg-length discrepancy 6-months after the index surgery. Two patients had postoperative iliopsoas bursitis or impingement treated conservatively with corticosteroid steroid injection and physical therapy.

Return to Work

Three studies were identified with characteristics pertaining to RTW.27–29 Rates of RTW within 3 months between three studies were 30%,29 45%,27 and 60%.28 One study reported rate of RTW of 79% at 6 months and 87% at 12 months.27 The study that reported a RTW of 60% at 8-week follow-up demonstrated a mean time to RTW of 38 ± 24.8 days.28

Latijnhouwerse et al.27 reported physical workload characteristics preoperatively; 40% of patients were characterized as light, 41% of patients medium, and 19% of patients heavy. Postoperatively, 51% of patients reported work limitations due to physical constraints at 3 months, 39% of patients at 6 months, and 20% of patients at 12 months.

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed the rates of RTS/RTW, with a meta-analysis conducted with respects to RTS. At a weighted mean follow up of 31.8 ± 9.5 months, pooled analysis demonstrated rate of RTS was 76%; rate of return to the same sport was 77%; rate of RTS to the same intensity was 56%. Rates of RTW were unable to be pooled due to limited data.

The rate of RTS following DAA THA is comparable to THAs of different approaches and other non-arthroplasty hip procedures. Pasqualini et al14 conducted a systematic review of 16 studies collectively representing 1,462 patients on RTS following THA without delineating surgical approach, demonstrating an overall pooled RTS rate of 85%. Importantly, only two out of the five studies analyzed in our meta-analysis overlapped with that of Pasqualini et al., and the remaining studies were published following the inception of their investigation. O’connor et al.30 conducted a meta-analysis on RTS following hip arthroscopy from 22 studies representing 1296 patients with a mean age of 40.0 ± 1.3 years and reported a rate of RTS was 84.6%. Our pooled rates of RTS for DAA THA were comparable to that of hip arthroscopy, despite arthroplasty being performed on a considerably older patient population.

The majority of patients were able to resume the same preoperative sporting activities, although the intensity of activities demonstrated a decline. Pooled analysis in our study included wide range of sports participation. It is unknown how the decrease in intensity after RTS is distributed across different sporting activities based on available data. However, previous analyses with data stratified by sports categories may provide insight. A systematic review of 14 studies by Hoorntje et al.15 reported low impact sports participation of 62% preoperatively and 69% postoperatively; intermediate impact sports participation of 24% preoperatively and 23% postoperatively; and high impact sports participation of 14% and 8% postoperatively. Similarly, Pasqualini et al14 reported a pooled RTS rate for high intensity sports of 35% and a pooled RTS rate for low intensity sports of 76%. Thus, the rate of RTS to the same intensity may be disproportionately impacted by patients partaking in high impact sports preoperatively. Notably, many systematic reviews do not explicitly report rates of RTS to the same intensity.

Meta-regression analysis failed to demonstrate statistically significant correlations between age, sex, BMI, mean follow up time, and preoperative PROMs with rate of RTS. Previously published systematic reviews similarly were unable to establish consensus correlations between demographic characteristics and rates of RTS.14,15 However, preoperative sports participation31–34 and patient motivation35,36 have been consistently identified as particularly important predictors for successful RTS in current literature. One study further reported a stronger correlation between motivation and RTS than postoperative level of pain and discomfort.35 These trends are similarly reflected in amongst the studies in our systematic review, as two studies reported either loss of interest or motivation as the most common reasons for not RTS.23,26 Thus successful RTS may be less dependent on THA approach and more contingent on individual goals and expectations.

Interestingly, the unilateral THA population from Batailler et al.26 in our meta-analysis had fallen outside of the 95% CI for the funnel plots, suggesting the rate of RTS from this group may be a potential outlier. This apparent heterogeneity may be partially explained by the natural history of hip osteoarthritis. Symptomatic osteoarthritis in one hip is associated with radiographic evidence of contralateral joint osteoarthritis in up to 80% of cases, with rates of severe disease progression necessitating contralateral THA within 10-years of the index surgery ranging from 17-35%.37–41 Thus, those receiving unilateral THA in the study by Batailler et al.26 may have been limited from physical activity by pathology in the contralateral hip. The unilateral THA group in subsequent funnel plots approached the 95% CI in return to the same sport and was within the 95% CI in RTS to same intensity, which may suggest that those who did RTS were less limited by joint pathology in the contralateral hip at baseline.

Limited studies exist which reports rates of RTW following DAA THA. Only found one study was identified which reporting RTW rates and characteristics as the primary study outcome, while two other studies had analyzed RTW rates as a secondary study outcome. All three studies were comparative. Latijnhouwerse et al27 compared DAA to posterolateral approach in a propensity matched population and demonstrated no significant difference in rates of RTW or number of hours worked at three, six, and twelve months postoperatively. Poehling et al.29 retrospectively demonstrated a significant difference between DAA RTS rates (30%) and miniposterior approach (MPA) RTS rates (2%) (p = <0.01). However, data from 90/126 patients in the DAA group and 61/96 in the MPA group were missing. Another study by Poehling et al.28 reported on outcomes between DAA and MPA THA patients from a separate prospective population. Mean number of days to RTW was significantly longer in the DAA cohort (38 ± 24.8 days) compared to the MPA cohort (26 ± 16.1 days) (p = 0.04). It was not reported if the rate or RTW in the DAA cohort (60%) was significantly different from the MPA cohort (54%). Existing literature lacks data to support definitive rates of RTW in DAA THA patients both in terms of quality and quantity. The lack of high-quality data underscores the need for further studies on RTW rates and characteristics following DAA THA. Considering arguments for DAA THA are framed within the context of faster recovery time compared to other approaches, more evidence is needed to accurately counsel patients on RTW expectations following surgery.

Limitations

This study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. The number of available studies published that reported on rates RTS after DAA THA were limited, which allows individual studies with outlier data in the meta-analysis of RTS to have increasing influence on pooled averages. This was confirmed on funnel plot analysis which demonstrated asymmetry and disproportionally increased weight on the cohort represented by unilateral THA from Batailler et al.26 Another limitation is that two studies analyzed rates of return to sports based on patients performing sports at a high to professional level, which may artificially deflate rates of RTS and RTS at the same intensity. The overall evidence of the pooled meta-analysis data was poor, with only level 3 and level 4 studies, as there were no published randomized controlled trials comparing DAA THA to other approaches in our literature search.

Conclusion

Pooled rate of RTS is satisfactory following DAA THA and are comparable to rates of RTS aggregated without delineating surgical approach. This provides further support for the utility and safety profile of THA as a whole. Data supporting RTW rates following DAA THA limited, and thus further analysis could not be conducted. More primary studies on RTS/RTW in DAA THAs are needed to establish if this approach confers an advantage of faster RTS/RTW. Although prior studies have demonstrated faster recovery rates in DAA THA the immediate perioperative period, there are few comparative studies that translate these results to clinically applicable outcomes. It is unclear whether a difference in RTS/RTW is truly attributable to the THA approach itself, or rather confounding factors such as self-selecting patients, individual goals, individual expectations.


Disclosures

Xuankang Pan, Sean C. Clark, and Karissa N. Simon have no disclosures.

Jacob F. Oeding discloses the following: Kaliber.ai, paid consultant

Cory G. Couch discloses the following: Orchard Medical and Signature Orthopedics, paid consultant

Michael J Taunton discloses the following: Enovis, royalties, paid consultant; AAHKS, financial support; Journal of Arthroplasty, editorial governing board; AAOS, board/committee member.

Mario Hevesi discloses the following: DJO Enovis, paid consultant; Moximed, paid consultant; Vericel, paid consultant; Elsevier, financial or material support; Journal of Cartilage and Joint Preservation, board member/committee member.

Funding

None

Accepted: June 04, 2024 EDT

References

1.
Varacallo MA, Herzog L, Toossi N, Johanson NA. Ten-Year Trends and Independent Risk Factors for Unplanned Readmission Following Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty at a Large Urban Academic Hospital. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(6):1739-1746. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.035
Google Scholar
2.
Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(17):1455-1460. doi:10.2106/jbjs.17.01617
Google Scholar
3.
Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad FS. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-b(6):732-740. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.99b6.38053
Google Scholar
4.
Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):419-434. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.020
Google Scholar
5.
Hoppenfeld S, deBoer P, Buckley R. Surgical Exposures in Orthopaedics: The Anatomic Approach. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
Google Scholar
6.
Moyer R, Lanting B, Marsh J, et al. Postoperative Gait Mechanics After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS Rev. 2018;6(11):e1. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00133
Google Scholar
7.
Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B. Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(426):164-173. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000136651.21191.9f
Google Scholar
8.
Jewett BA, Collis DK. High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):503-507. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1568-1
Google Scholar
9.
Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(5):698-704. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.012
Google Scholar
10.
Horne PH, Olson SA. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty using the fracture table. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(3):139-145. doi:10.1007/s12178-011-9087-6
Google Scholar
11.
Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM. Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg. 2015;58(2):128-139. doi:10.1503/cjs.007214
Google Scholar
12.
Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Rathod PA, et al. Does the direct anterior approach in THA offer faster rehabilitation and comparable safety to the posterior approach? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):455-463. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3231-0
Google Scholar
13.
Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 Suppl):169-172. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.051
Google Scholar
14.
Pasqualini I, Emara AK, Rullan PJ, et al. Return to Sports and Return to Work After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JBJS Rev. 2023;11(8). doi:10.2106/jbjs.Rvw.22.00249
Google Scholar
15.
Hoorntje A, Janssen KY, Bolder SBT, et al. The Effect of Total Hip Arthroplasty on Sports and Work Participation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2018;48(7):1695-1726. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0924-2
Google Scholar
16.
Higgins J, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates. Published online 2017.
Google Scholar
17.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Google Scholar
18.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
Google Scholar
19.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Google Scholar
20.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898
Google Scholar
21.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Bmj. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
Google Scholar
22.
Nogier A, Tourabaly I, Ramos-Pascual S, et al. Excellent Clinical Outcomes and Return to Dance of 6 Active, Professional Ballet Dancers Aged Younger Than 40 Years at Total Hip Arthroplasty Through Direct Anterior Approach With a Custom Stem: A Case Report. Clin J Sport Med. Published online 2023. doi:10.1097/JSM.0000000000001143
Google Scholar
23.
Nogier A, Tourabaly I, Ramos-Pascual S, et al. High Rates of Satisfaction and Return to Dance in Current or Former Professional Ballet Dancers After Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Muscle-Sparing Direct Anterior Approach Using Custom Femoral Stems. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11(3):23259671231155143. doi:10.1177/23259671231155143
Google Scholar
24.
Mead PA, Bugbee WD. Direct Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves the Likelihood of Return to Previous Recreational Activities Compared with Posterior Approach. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022;6(1). doi:10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00160
Google Scholar
25.
Yun AG, Qutami M, Carles E. Returning to Yoga Practice and Teaching After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e17669. doi:10.7759/cureus.17669
Google Scholar
26.
Batailler C, Rozinthe A, Mercier M, Bankhead C, Gaillard R, Lustig S. Return to Sport After Bilateral Single Stage Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Direct Anterior Approach: A Case Control Study. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(12):2972-2977. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.054
Google Scholar
27.
Latijnhouwers D, Laas N, Verdegaal SHM, et al. Activities and participation after primary total hip arthroplasty; posterolateral versus direct anterior approach in 860 patients. Acta Orthop. 2022;93:613-622. doi:10.2340/17453674.2022.3149
Google Scholar
28.
Poehling-Monaghan KL, Taunton MJ, Kamath AF, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Pagnano MW. No Correlation Between Serum Markers and Early Functional Outcome After Contemporary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(2):452-462. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4904-2
Google Scholar
29.
Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):623-631. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3827-z
Google Scholar
30.
O’Connor M, Minkara AA, Westermann RW, Rosneck J, Lynch TS. Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(11):2780-2788. doi:10.1177/0363546518759731
Google Scholar
31.
Abe H, Sakai T, Nishii T, Takao M, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Jogging after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(1):131-137. doi:10.1177/0363546513506866
Google Scholar
32.
Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ. Effect of total hip arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(6):446-449. doi:10.1111/j.1445-1433.2004.03028.x
Google Scholar
33.
Hara D, Hamai S, Komiyama K, Motomura G, Shiomoto K, Nakashima Y. Sports Participation in Patients After Total Hip Arthroplasty vs Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Asian Cohort Study. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(2):423-430. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.035
Google Scholar
34.
Huch K, Müller KA, Stürmer T, Brenner H, Puhl W, Günther KP. Sports activities 5 years after total knee or hip arthroplasty: the Ulm Osteoarthritis Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(12):1715-1720. doi:10.1136/ard.2004.033266
Google Scholar
35.
Bonnin MP, Rollier JC, Chatelet JC, et al. Can Patients Practice Strenuous Sports After Uncemented Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty? Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118763920. doi:10.1177/2325967118763920
Google Scholar
36.
Ollivier M, Frey S, Parratte S, Flecher X, Argenson JN. Pre-operative function, motivation and duration of symptoms predict sporting participation after total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(8):1041-1046. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.96b8.32813
Google Scholar
37.
Santana DC, Anis HK, Mont MA, Higuera CA, Piuzzi NS. What is the Likelihood of Subsequent Arthroplasties after Primary TKA or THA? Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(1):34-41. doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000000925
Google Scholar
38.
Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Schleck CD, Larson DR, Berry DJ. Subsequent Total Joint Arthroplasty After Primary Total Knee or Hip Arthroplasty: A 40-Year Population-Based Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(5):396-401. doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.00499
Google Scholar
39.
Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Jaffe DE, Mont MA. Incidence of contralateral THA after index THA for osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):535-540. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2110-9
Google Scholar
40.
Sayeed SA, Trousdale RT, Barnes SA, Kaufman KR, Pagnano MW. Joint arthroplasty within 10 years after primary charnley total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(8):E141-3.
Google Scholar
41.
Shao Y, Zhang C, Charron KD, Macdonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB. The fate of the remaining knee(s) or hip(s) in osteoarthritic patients undergoing a primary TKA or THA. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(10):1842-1845. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.008
Google Scholar

Appendix

OVID

Database(s): **Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Present and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, EBM Reviews - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials June 2023, EBM Reviews - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005 to July 12, 2023, Embase **1974 to 2023 July 13

Search Strategy:

Search Strategy
# Searches
1 Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/
2 Arthroplasty, Replacement/
3 Hip Joint/
4 2 and 3
5 (((arthroplast* or hemiarthroplast* or "hemi-arthroplast*") adj5 hip*) or (replacement adj3 (hip or hips))).ti,ab,hw,kf.
6 1 or 4 or 5
7 (DAA or "direct anterior" or approach*).ti,ab,hw,kf.
8 Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/
9 exp minimally invasive surgery/
10 ("minimally-invasive" or MIS or cMIS or "less-invasive" or microsurg* or "micro-surg*" or endoscop* or tubular or laparoscop* or "mini-surg*" or minisurg* or "microscopic-surg*" or "mini-endo*" or "micro-endoscop*" or microendoscop* or ((mini* or lap* or robot* or endoscop* or tubular or percutaneous or "muscle-sparing") adj4 (technique* or approach* or technolog* or access or assist* or invasive or surg*))).ti,ab.
11 7 or 8 or 9 or 10
12 exp return to sport/
13 (return* or resum* or participat* or "re-entry" or "re-enter*" or restart* or "re-start*").ti,ab,hw,kf. or (play* or sport* or function or activity or activities or work or preinjur* or "pre-injur*" or athletic* or competition or recreation*).ti,ab.
14 12 or 13
15 6 and 11 and 14
16 (exp animals/ or exp nonhuman/) not exp humans/
17 ((alpaca or alpacas or algae* or amphibian or amphibians or animal or animals or antelope or armadillo or armadillos or avian or baboon or baboons or bats or beagle or beagles or bee or bees or bird or birds or bison or bovine or buffalo or buffaloes or buffalos or "c elegans" or "Caenorhabditis elegans" or camel or camels or canine or canines or canis or carp or cats or catfish or cattle or chamaeleo* or chameleon* or chick or chicken or chickens or chicks or chimp or chimpanze or chimpanzees or chimps or cow or cows or "D melanogaster" or "dairy calf" or "dairy calves" or deer or dog or dogs or donkey or donkeys or drosophila or "Drosophila melanogaster" or duck or duckling or ducklings or ducks or equid or equids or equine or equines or feline or felines or ferret or ferrets or finch or finches or fish or flatworm or flatworms or fox or foxes or frog or frogs or "fruit flies" or "fruit fly" or "G mellonella" or "Galleria mellonella" or geese or gerbil or gerbils or goat or goats or goose or gorilla or gorillas or groundhog or groundhogs or hamster or hamsters or hare or hares or heifer or heifers or horse or horses or iguana or iguanas or insect or insects or jellyfish or kangaroo or kangaroos or kitten or kittens or "laboratory animal*" or lagomorph or lagomorphs or lamb or lambs or lemur or lemurs or lemuridae or llama or llamas or macaque or macaques or macaw or macaws or marmoset or marmosets or mice or minipig or minipigs or mink or minks or monkey or monkeys or mouse or mule or mules or muskrat or muskrats or nematode or nematodes or newt or newts or octopus or octopuses or orangutan or "orang-utan" or orangutans or "orang-utans" or oxen or parrot or parrots or pig or pigeon or pigeons or piglet or piglets or pigs or porcine or primate or primates or poultry or quail or rabbit or rabbits or rat or rats or reptile or reptiles or rodent or rodents or ruminant or ruminants or salmon or sheep or shrimp or slug or slugs or swine or tamarin or tamarins or tilapia or tilapias or toad or toads or trout or urchin or urchins or vole or voles or waxworm or waxworms or weasel or weasels or wolf or wolves or worm or worms or wrass* or xenopus or "zebra fish" or zebrafish) not (human or humans or patient or patients)).ti,ab,hw,kw.
18 (rat or rats or mice or mouse or murine or pig or pigs or porcine or swine or dog or dogs).ti.
19 or/16-18
20 15 not 19
21 (conference abstract or conference review or editorial or erratum or note or addresses or autobiography or bibliography or biography or blogs or comment or dictionary or directory or interactive tutorial or interview or lectures or legal cases or legislation or news or newspaper article or patient education handout or periodical index or portraits or published erratum or video-audio media or webcasts).mp. or conference abstract.st.
22 20 not 21
23 limit 22 to english language [Limit not valid in CDSR; records were retained]
24 remove duplicates from 23

SCOPUS

( ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( arthroplast* OR hemiarthroplast* OR “hemi-arthroplast*” ) W/5 hip* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( replacement W/3 ( hip OR hips ) ) ) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( daa OR “direct anterior” OR approach* ) OR TITLE ( “minimally-invasive” OR mis OR cmis OR “less-invasive” OR microsurg* OR “micro-surg*” OR endoscop* OR tubular OR laparoscop* OR “mini-surg*” OR minisurg* OR “microscopic-surg*” OR “mini-endo*” OR “micro-endoscop*” OR microendoscop* OR ( ( mini* OR lap* OR robot* OR endoscop* OR tubular OR percutaneous OR “muscle-sparing” ) W/4 ( technique* OR approach* OR technolog* OR access OR assist* OR invasive OR surg* ) ) ) ) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( return* OR resum* OR participat* OR “re-entry” OR “re-enter*” ) ) ) AND NOT ( INDEX ( embase ) OR INDEX ( medline ) OR PMID ( 0* OR 1* OR 2* OR 3* OR 4* OR 5* OR 6* OR 7* OR 8* OR 9* ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE , “j” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , “ar” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) )

Web of Science

((TS=((arthroplast* or hemiarthroplast* or “hemi-arthroplast*”) NEAR/5 hip*) or TS=(replacement NEAR/3 (hip or hips))) AND (TS=(DAA or “direct anterior” or approach*) OR TI=(“minimally-invasive” or MIS or cMIS or “less-invasive” or microsurg* or “micro-surg*” or endoscop* or tubular or laparoscop* or “mini-surg*” or minisurg* or “microscopic-surg*” or “mini-endo*” or “micro-endoscop*” or microendoscop* or ((mini* or lap* or robot* or endoscop* or tubular or percutaneous or “muscle-sparing”) NEAR/4 (technique* or approach* or technolog* or access or assist* or invasive or surg*)))) AND TS=(return* or resum* or participat* or “re-entry” or “re-enter*”)) not PMID=(0* or 1* or 2* or 3* or 4* or 5* or 6* or 7* or 8* or 9*)

Refined By:Languages: English and Document Types: Article