Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The classical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are the direct lateral approach (DLA) and posterior lateral approach (PLA). There are few studies comparing implant orientation with these two approaches, and the impact of surgical approaches on implant orientation remains controversial. With the rise of the EOS imaging system, we aimed to use it to identify the differences between and factors associated with implant orientation after THA using DLA and PLA. METHODS: In our department from January 2019 to December 2021, 321 primary unilateral THAs that used PLA and DLA were enrolled. A total of 201 patients who received PLA and 120 patients who received DLA were included in this study. Two blinded observers measured each case using EOS imaging data. Postoperative imaging metrics and other relevant influencing factors of the two surgical approaches were compared. Postoperative imaging metrics, including the anteversion and inclination of the cup, anteversion of the stem, and combined anteversion were measured based on EOS. Other relevant influencing factors included age, approach, gender, laterality, BMI, anterior pelvic plane inclination, femoral head diameter, femoral offset, lateral pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvis axial rotation, sacral slope, sagittal pelvic tilt, and surgery time. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the predictors of acceptability for each imaging data point. RESULTS: No dislocation was found in the 321 patients who underwent primary THA during this period. The mean anteversion and combined anteversion of the cups using the DLA were 21.33° ± 17.31° (-51.7°-60.8°) and 33.71° ± 20.85° (-38.8°-77.6°) and PLA were 25.34° ± 12.76° (-5.5°-57.0°) and 42.37° ± 18.85° (-8.7°-84.7°), respectively. The DLA group had smaller anteversion (p = 0.038) and combined anteversion (p < 0.001). We found that surgical approach (p < 0.05), anterior pelvic plane inclination (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), and femoral head diameter (p < 0.001) were important factors affecting acetabular cup anteversion (R(2) = 0.375) and combined anteversion (R(2) = 0.525). CONCLUSIONS: In total hip arthroplasty, different prosthesis installation directions should be made according to different surgical approaches. Compared with the direct lateral approach, the acetabular anteversion can be intentionally enlarged when using the posterolateral approach. Surgical approach, anterior pelvic plane inclination (APPI), gender, and femoral head diameter were significant predictors of prosthesis orientation. The anterior pelvic plane inclination may be a useful standard for assessing the position of the prosthesis using EOS.