Posterior approach to optimise patient-reported outcome from revision hip arthroplasty



Most total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the UK are performed through a posterior or lateral surgical approach. We aimed to investigate any difference in outcome from revision THA according to the approach at primary and revision THA surgery.


A retrospective cohort study of 205 patients who underwent revision THA for aseptic loosening. Patients rated their pain from 0-10 and completed the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC and Short form-12 questionnaires.


205 patients (209 hips) from a cohort of 238 patients (243 hips, 86%) were available for analysis. The mean follow-up was 5 years (SD 1.71). Grouping by approach 20% (43/209) had both primary and revision procedures via a lateral approach, 20% (43/209) had their primary surgery via a lateral approach and their revision surgery via a posterior approach, whilst 60% (123/209) had both procedures via a posterior approach.

The WOMAC and OHS were significantly better in patients who had a posterior approach for both primary and revision surgery, compared to those that did not (OHS p = 0.028, WOMAC p = 0.026). We found no significant differences in pain, satisfaction or health-related quality of life between the groups.


Choice of approach for revision hip arthroplasty is influenced by a number of factors, but in clinical situations where either a lateral or posterior approach could be used, the posterior approach appears to be associated with better joint-specific outcomes. Registry data may help further explore the associations between surgical approach and the outcome from revision THA.

Hip Int 2017; 27(2): 175 - 179




Julia Blackburn, Diana Lim, Ian Harrowell, Michael C. Parry, Ashley W. Blom, Michael R. Whitehouse

Article History


Financial support: None.
Conflict of interest: MRW receives money from DePuy and Heraeus for preparing and delivering teaching and training sessions. MRW also receives small grants and consumables (<£10,000) for research from DePuy, JRI and Heraeus. AWB receives research support from Stryker and is a board member of the European Orthopaedic Research Society.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.



  • Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol - UK
  • Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham - UK

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.