Gait analysis after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach versus anterolateral approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Comparative studies of total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with the anterolateral approach (ALA) by gait analysis compared the results of the two groups, the damage to the abductor muscle, with objective and detailed kinematic as well as kinetic data of actual gait. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the differences in gait such as time-dependent parameters, kinetics, and kinematics after THA using the DAA compared with ALA. Methods PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science, EMBASE and AHRQ carried out a comprehensive search for all relevant randomized controlled trials and comparative studies, up to December 2018. Based on the following criteria, studies were selected: 1) study design: randomized controlled trials or non-randomized comparative studies; 2) study population: patients with primary osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis; 3) intervention: total hip arthroplasty by DAA or ALA; 4) Kinetic and kinematic data after gait analysis in the plains during postoperative follow-up. Results Of the 148 studies, 7 randomized controlled trials and 5 comparative studies were finally included in this systematic review. The peak hip flexion within 3 months after surgery was described in two studies and was significantly higher in the DAA group. (OR = 1.90; 95% CI [1.67,2.13]; P < 0.01, Z = 16.18). The gait speed within 3 months after surgery was reported in 3 studies and was significantly higher in the DAA group than in the ALA group. (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI [0.12,0.22]; P < 0.01, Z = 6.62) There was no difference between the two groups in stride length, step length, and hip range of motion in sagittal plane. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, gait speed and peak hip flexion within 3 months after surgery were significantly higher in the DAA group than in the ALA group. Despite a few significant differences between two approaches, determining whether the reported differences in terms of postoperative gait values are clinically meaningful remains a substantial challenge.