It's a good question..
Background
I was lucky enough to complete my arthroplasty training at University of British Columbia, in Vancouver in 2009..
When it came to operating on the hip, I can paraphrase the team's approach..
"We've tried every approach to the hip over the years.. anterior, posterior, mini-incision, two-incision.. and we keep coming back to the posterior approach"
That's my background, BUT still..
First port of call, is always the evidence, and a paper that looked at..
Comparing outcomes that matter..
CONCLUSION: '..does not demonstrate clear superiority of either approach'
'We need more rigorous, randomised evidence...'
My Reply
"That’s a good question more people are asking me about.
There are pros and cons to each approach:
The Anterior approach is muscle separating so early recovery is theoretically a bit quicker.
BUT the incision is closer to the groin and there some evidence that the infection rate is slightly higher.
AND, importantly, pain and function outcomes are about the same from 6 weeks on.
The posterior approach (which I use)..
It’s the approach that I use as for revision hip surgery.
It enables a solution to any problem.
The posterior approach does divide one or two small muscles at the back of the hip joint which we repair.
Importantly it avoids the main hip abductor muscle.
The anterior approach is the newer technique
Google it and you'll find there’s more written about it
BUT I can't change my approach given my current practice results in UK leading gains in pain and function.."
