OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to directly evaluate the direct anterior approach (DAA) and the posterior approach (PA) for early efficacy and safety of total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Control-led trials assessing DAA and PA for the efficacy and safety of THA were searched in the database. Articles were reviewed according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria; the quality of the methodology included in a given study was strictly assessed before data extraction. Moreover, meta-analysis was performed for outcomes that can be combined; otherwise, descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There were 20 articles included, with a total of 7377 patients. Among these, 3728 and 3649 cases were in the DAA and PA groups, respectively. There was no difference between the DAA and PA groups at postoperative week 2 in the number of patients using the assistive ambulatory device or in time needed to completely discontinue all assistive ambulatory devices. Descriptive analysis found that DAA was slightly better than PA regarding early functional recovery and activity after surgery, as well as postoperative pain relief. Hospitalisation stay in the DAA group was shorter than in the PA group, in which the patients had a shorter operative time. Radiographic outcomes showed that there was little difference in prosthetic position between the DAA and PA groups. The proportions of intraoperative fractures and postoperative lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh (LCNT) neuropraxia were significantly higher in the DAA group than in patients who underwent PA.

CONCLUSION

Compared with PA, DAA presents superior early recovery following THA.