Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The most common surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty in Sweden are the posterior and the anterolateral transgluteal approach. Currently, however, there is insufficient evidence to prefer one over the other regarding risk of subsequent surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between the years 1992 and 2009 to compare the posterior and anterolateral transgluteal approach regarding risk of revision in the 3 most common all-cemented hip prosthesis designs in Sweden. 90,662 total hip replacements met the inclusion criteria. We used Cox regression analysis for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision due to dislocation, infection, or aseptic loosening. RESULTS: Our results show that for the Lubinus SPII prosthesis and the Spectron EF Primary prosthesis, the anterolateral transgluteal approach gave an increased risk of revision due to aseptic loosening (relative risk (RR) = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0-1.6 and RR = 1.6, CI: 1.0-2.5) but a reduced risk of revision due to dislocation (RR = 0.7, CI: 0.5-0.8 and RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.4). For the Exeter Polished prosthesis, the surgical approach did not affect the outcome for dislocation or aseptic loosening. The surgical approach had no influence on the risk of revision due to infection in any of these designs. INTERPRETATION: This observational study shows that the surgical approach affected the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and dislocation for 2 of the most commonly used cemented implants in Sweden. Further studies are needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to other implants and to uncemented fixation.