The learning curve of the direct anterior approach is 100 cases: an analysis based on 15,875 total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 09 2022
27 09 2022
Historique:
received:
25
04
2022
entrez:
29
9
2022
pubmed:
30
9
2022
medline:
1
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the last decade, the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become more popular in the Netherlands. Therefore, we investigated the learning curve and survival rate of the DAA in primary THA, using data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). We identified all patients who received a primary THA using the DAA in several high-volume centers in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2019 (n = 15,903). Procedures were ordered per surgeon, using date of operation. Using the procedure number, operations were divided into 6 groups based on the number of previous procedures per surgeon (first 25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200, > 200). Data from different surgeons in different hospitals was pooled together. Revision rates were calculated using a multilevel time-to-event analysis. Patients operated on in group 1-25 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; 95% CI 1.1-2.4) and 26-50 (HR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.5) had a higher risk for revision compared with patients operated on in group > 200 THAs. Between 50 and 100 procedures the revision risk was increased (HR 1.3; CI 0.9-1.9), albeit not statistically significant. From 100 procedures onwards the HR for revision was respectively 1.0 (CI 0.6-1.6) and 0.8 (CI 0.5-1.4) for patients in operation groups 101-150 and 151-200. Main reasons for revision were loosening of the stem (29%), periprosthetic infection (19%), and dislocation (16%). We found a 64% increased risk of revision for patients undergoing THA using the DAA for the first 50 cases per surgeon. Between 50 and 100 cases, this risk was 30% increased, but not statistically significant. From 100 cases onwards, a steady state had been reached in revision rate. The learning curve for DAA therefore is around 100 cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In the last decade, the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become more popular in the Netherlands. Therefore, we investigated the learning curve and survival rate of the DAA in primary THA, using data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We identified all patients who received a primary THA using the DAA in several high-volume centers in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2019 (n = 15,903). Procedures were ordered per surgeon, using date of operation. Using the procedure number, operations were divided into 6 groups based on the number of previous procedures per surgeon (first 25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200, > 200). Data from different surgeons in different hospitals was pooled together. Revision rates were calculated using a multilevel time-to-event analysis.
RESULTS
Patients operated on in group 1-25 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; 95% CI 1.1-2.4) and 26-50 (HR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.5) had a higher risk for revision compared with patients operated on in group > 200 THAs. Between 50 and 100 procedures the revision risk was increased (HR 1.3; CI 0.9-1.9), albeit not statistically significant. From 100 procedures onwards the HR for revision was respectively 1.0 (CI 0.6-1.6) and 0.8 (CI 0.5-1.4) for patients in operation groups 101-150 and 151-200. Main reasons for revision were loosening of the stem (29%), periprosthetic infection (19%), and dislocation (16%).
INTERPRETATION
We found a 64% increased risk of revision for patients undergoing THA using the DAA for the first 50 cases per surgeon. Between 50 and 100 cases, this risk was 30% increased, but not statistically significant. From 100 cases onwards, a steady state had been reached in revision rate. The learning curve for DAA therefore is around 100 cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36173140
doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.4802
pmc: PMC9521054
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
775-782Références
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jun;101-B(6):646-651
pubmed: 31154834
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Dec;473(12):3860-6
pubmed: 26394641
Acta Orthop. 2021 Dec;92(6):689-694
pubmed: 34605337
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jun 24;9:93
pubmed: 18577202
Biometrics. 2001 Mar;57(1):96-102
pubmed: 11252624
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Apr;474(4):971-81
pubmed: 26620966
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1780-1785
pubmed: 29439894
Int Orthop. 2016 Sep;40(9):1813-9
pubmed: 26634579
Orthop Surg. 2020 Jun;12(3):852-860
pubmed: 32424969
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Mar;30(3):419-34
pubmed: 25453632
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jan;35(1):188-192.e2
pubmed: 31506185
Hip Int. 2014 May-Jun;24(3):277-83
pubmed: 24500832
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Nov;29(11):3424-3454
pubmed: 32466712
Acta Orthop. 2017 Aug;88(4):395-401
pubmed: 28440704
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jun;476(6):1212-1220
pubmed: 29481346
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Sep;468(9):2397-404
pubmed: 20532717
J Surg Orthop Adv. 2012 Summer;21(2):78-83
pubmed: 22995355
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 Nov 15;29(22):e1126-e1140
pubmed: 33315648
Acta Orthop. 2015;86(4):498-505
pubmed: 25758646
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Sep;36(9):3248-3258.e1
pubmed: 34116911
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3431-42
pubmed: 25804881
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Apr 25;7:17
pubmed: 22533964
Hip Int. 2016 Mar-Apr;26(2):105-20
pubmed: 26951546
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Dec;107(8):102956
pubmed: 33962046
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1786-1793
pubmed: 29502965
Int Orthop. 2021 Aug;45(8):1971-1982
pubmed: 33629172
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Nov 4;102(21):1874-1882
pubmed: 32769807
Acta Orthop. 2014 Sep;85(5):463-9
pubmed: 24954494
Acta Orthop. 2018 Apr;89(2):163-169
pubmed: 29160130
Orthopedics. 2008 Dec;31(12 Suppl 2):
pubmed: 19298019