Comparative Analysis of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Hip Replacement Surgery: Enhancing Patient Efficiency

Su Djie to Rante, I Made Artawan, Sidarta Sagita

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Nusa Cendana Kupang, Indonesia

Refer this article

Su Djie To Rante, I Made Artawan, Sidarta Sagita, 2024. Comparative Analysis of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Hip Replacement Surgery: Enhancing Patient Efficiency. Journal of medical pharmaceutical and allied sciences, V 13 - I 1, Pages- 6417 – 6421. Doi: https://doi.org/10.55522/jmpas.V13I1.6154.

ABSTRACT

Hip replacement surgery, a significant orthopaedic intervention, is commonly undertaken to address hip pain stemming from aging or injury, particularly among elderly patients. The primary objective of this surgical procedure is to restore the patient's quality of life to its pre-operative state, enabling them to resume normal daily activities. Typically, the posterior approach has been the conventional surgical method for hip replacement, widely practiced both in Indonesia and globally. This evolving trend has sparked interest in comparing the effectiveness and outcomes of the anterior and posterior approaches, particularly concerning critical factors such as operating time, length of hospital stays, need for transfusion, and postoperative mobilization time. In pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, a study was conducted, focusing on patients who underwent hip replacement surgery at Siloam Kupang Hospital. The anterior approach was considered as the case group, while the posterior approach served as the control group. Surprisingly, the study did not identify any statistically significant differences in operating time and transfusion requirements between hip replacement surgeries utilizing the anterior approach and those employing the posterior approach. This suggests that, from a procedural standpoint, both approaches are comparable in terms of efficiency and blood management. However, when assessing postoperative outcomes, distinct trends emerged. The anterior approach demonstrated a notable advantage in terms of faster mobilization times, implying a quicker recovery and the potential for patients to regain their mobility sooner. On the other hand, the posterior approach exhibited a shorter hospital stay, suggesting a streamlined postoperative course. These findings contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse within the orthopaedic community regarding the merits of the anterior and posterior approaches in hip replacement surgery. As medical practices continue to evolve, such comparative studies play a pivotal role in refining surgical techniques and optimizing patient outcomes in the realm of orthopaedic interventions.

Keywords:

Orthopaedic, Hip, Replacement, Surgery, Orthopaedic.

Full Text Article