Newer surgical approaches to THA, such as the direct anterior approach, may influence a patient’s time to recovery, but it is important to make sure that these approaches do not compromise reconstructive safety or accuracy. We compared the direct anterior approach and conventional posterior approach in terms of (1) recovery of hip function after primary THA, (2) general health outcomes, (3) operative time and surgical complications, and (4) accuracy of component placement. In this prospective, comparative, nonrandomized study of 120 patients (60 direct anterior THA, 60 posterior THAs), we assessed functional recovery using the VAS pain score, timed up and go (TUG) test, motor component of the Functional Independence Measure™ (M-FIM™), UCLA activity score, Harris hip score, and patient-maintained subjective milestone diary and general health outcome using SF-12 scores. Operative time, complications, and component placement were also compared. Functional recovery was faster in patients with the direct anterior approach on the basis of TUG and M-FIM™ up to 2 weeks; no differences were found in terms of the other metrics we used, and no differences were observed between groups beyond 6 weeks. General health outcomes, operative time, and complications were similar between groups. No clinically important differences were observed in terms of implant alignment. We observed very modest functional advantages early in recovery after direct anterior THA compared to posterior-approach THA. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings, and these findings may not generalize well to lower-volume practice settings or to surgeons earlier in the learning curve of direct anterior THA. Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Although there are many studies on the alignment advantages when using the robotic arm–assisted (RAA) system for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there have been questions regarding patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use this index to compare: (1) total, (2) physical function, and (3) pain scores for manual versus RAA patients. We compared 53 consecutive RAA to 53 consecutive manual TKAs. No differences in preoperative scores were found between the cohorts. Patients were administered a modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index satisfaction survey preoperatively and at 1-year postoperatively. The results were broken down to: (1) total, (2) physical function, and (3) pain scores. Univariate analysis with independent samples t-tests was used to compare 1-year postoperative scores. Multivariate models with stepwise backward linear regression were utilized to evaluate the associations between scores and surgical technique, age, sex, as well as body mass index (BMI). Statistical analyses were performed with a p < 0.05 to determine significance. The RAA cohort had significantly improved mean total (6 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 8 points, p = 0.03) and physical function scores (4 ± 4 vs. 6 ± 5 points, p = 0.02) when compared with the manual cohort. The mean pain score for the RAA cohort (2 ± 3 points [range, 0–14 points]) was also lower than that for the manual cohort (3 ± 4 points [range, 0–11 points]) (p = 0.06). On backward linear regression analyses, RAA was found to be significantly associated with more improved total (β coefficient [β] −0.208, standard error [SE] 1.401, p < 0.05), function (β = 0.216, SE = 0.829, p < 0.05), and pain scores (β −0.181, SE = 0.623, p = 0.063). The RAA technique was found to have the strongest association with improved scores when compared with age, gender, and BMI. This study suggests that RAA patients may have short-term improvements at minimum 1-year postoperatively. However, longer term follow-up with greater sample sizes is needed to further validate these results.