Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroplasty Using the Supine Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach

Abstract

Background: In the United States, the number of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases is projected to grow from 50,000 in 2014 to 85,000 by 2030. The anterior-based muscle sparing approach (ABMS) has been described as a viable approach for primary THA, but little has been written in the revision setting. This study compares the supine ABMS approach to alternative approaches in revision THA. Material and methods: A retrospective review was performed on 149 revision THAs from 2016 to 2019. The ABMS, modified Müller Hardinge (MMH), and posterolateral (PL) approaches were studied. Age, reason for arthroplasty, length of operation, length of stay, blood loss, and complications were extracted. Clinical outcomes were measured by the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Modified Harris Hip Score, University of California Los Angeles activity score, and Veterans RAND 12 Mental/Physical scores. Results: Approaches included 52 ABMS (33.8%), 58 MHH (37.7%), and 39 PL (25.3%). Complexity of cases and patient demographics were equivalent for each cohort. Extensile approaches were used in 12 of the 52 ABMS, 26 of the 58 MMH, and 13 of the 39 PL revisions, including acetabular cages, open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic fracture, extended trochanteric osteotomy, hardware removal, and/or pelvic discontinuity. There were no differences for blood loss, length of stay, complications, and outcome scores between approaches. Conclusion: We found no difference in complications or clinical outcome scores between the ABMS, MMH, and PL approaches for revision THA. The supine ABMS approach provides adequate extensile exposure of the femur and acetabulum for complex revisions and is a reliable approach for revision THA.

Keywords

• Revision hip arthroplasty
• Anterior based muscle-sparing approach
• Extensile approach
• Outcomes