Comparison of Prosthesis Position in Total Hip Arthroplasty by Lateral and Posterior Approach in Pathum Thani Hospital

Main Article Content

Kaewkun C, MD


Purpose: To compare differences in prosthetic position in total hip arthroplasty between the lateral and posterior approaches.

Methods: Retrospective analytical study reviewed the X-ray films and medical records of every patient treated with total hip arthroplasty from 2002 to 2010. There were 107 hips in 93 patients.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference in sex, age, or diagnosis between the two approaches. Acetabular inclination, vertical height, horizontal distance, and anteversion were also not significantly different between the two groups, yet the femoral stem alignment significantly tended to be varus in the posterior approach and valgus in the lateral approach. This also made the posterior approach group have longer offset with statistically significance. This might be the influence of the position of the femur when inserting the femoral stem. Limb length discrepancy was similar in both groups.

Conclusion: The femoral stem alignment significantly tended to be varus in the posterior approach and valgus in the lateral approach. This data can be used to prevent prosthetic malalignment following the selected approach in total hip arthroplasty.

Article Details

Original Articles


1. Harkess JW. Arthroplasty of the hip. In: CrenShaw AH, ed. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 9th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby. 1998: 296-471.
2. Bozic KJ, Freiberg AA, Harris WH. The high hip center. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004(420): 101-5.
3. Ackland MK, Bourne WB, Uhthoff HK. Anteversion of the acetabular cup. Measurement of angle after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986; 68(3): 409-13.
4. Yoder SA, Brand RA, Pedersen DR, O'Gorman TW. Total hip acetabular component position affects component loosening rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 (228): 79-87.
5. D'Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(3): 315-21.
6. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002(405): 46-53.
7. Demos HA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW. Instability in primary total hip arthroplasty with the direct lateral approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001(393): 168-80.
8. McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD, An KN, Cabanela ME. Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(6): 865-9.
9. Woo RY, Morrey BF. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982; 64(9): 1295-306.
10. Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D'Antonio JA. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001(393): 52-65.
11. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Keating ME, Faris PM, Meding JB. A clinical comparison of the anterolateral and posterolateral approaches to the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001(385): 95-9.
12. Delp SL, Wixson RL, Komattu AV, Kocmond JH. How superior placement of the joint center in hip arthroplasty affects the abductor muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996(328): 137-46.
13. Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(7): 1004-14.
14. Ritter MA, Zhou H, Keating CM, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB, et al. Radiological factors influencing femoral and acetabular failure in cemented Charnley total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81(6): 982-6.