ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE by DePuy Synthes, is a leading solution in the Anterior Approach to hip replacement.
The surgical approach (sometimes called the surgical technique) is the way the surgeon makes their incision so that they can operate on the bones that make up the hip joint. Many surgeons use what is called a traditional or posterior approach (incision through the back of the hip), while an increasing number of surgeons are using an Anterior Approach2,5,11,16 (incision through the front of the hip). The popularity of the Anterior Approach is rapidly growing because of its measured advantages and improved outcomes.1,2,5,11,12,16
Unlike a traditional approach where the muscles are cut, the Anterior Approach allows the surgeon to work between the muscles keeping them intact. By keeping the muscles intact, the Anterior Approach may allow for shorter recovery, less pain, a shorter hospital stay and fewer post-operative restrictions.1,5
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE is the DePuy Synthes branded solution for Anterior Approach. It is an Anterior Approach primary or revision hip replacement technique, which utilizes DePuy Synthes implant products.
Potential benefits of the ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients may:
- Spend less time in the hospital1,2,5,12,16
- Have a faster recovery2,5,11,16
- Experience less pain2,5,11
- Use less narcotics to relieve pain after surgery1,2,16 than those patients treated with traditional approaches
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE helps you get back sooner2,5,11,16 to living your life.
- Clinical studies support that ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ patients experience a reduced length of stay.1,5,12
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients spent almost one less day in the hospital compared to posterior approach patients.1,2,5,12,16
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients were discharged almost one day sooner than patients with a traditional approach (2.28 days vs 3.02 days, p=0.0028)5
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients experienced a 50% reduction in length of stay compared to posterior approach patients (33.9 hours compared to 65.8 hours, p<0.001)1
- Scientific data supports that ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients spend less time in recovery facilities1,2,5,12,16 and return to daily activity faster than patients treated with other procedures.2,5,11,12,16
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE can help you perform daily activities earlier in your recovery. This means that you may have more freedom to walk without support,2,5,16 climb stairs,5 and put on your own socks and shoes, compared to patients treated with another approach.11
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients are more likely to cease the use of a walking aid by 6 weeks post-surgery than posterior approach patients.2
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE is considered a muscle-sparing procedure for total hip replacement, which means that instead of cutting muscle, your surgeon works around muscle. By keeping your muscles intact, you may experience less pain early in your recovery than if you had undergone another procedure.2,5,11
- When compared to posterior approach patients, ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients have reported less pain at day one,5 week two,2 and week six post-operatively.2,11
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients experienced significantly less pain after primary THA as measured by visual analog pain scores (VAS, 4.8 vs 5.5, p=0.0472) (VAS 2.2 vs 5.20, p<0.0001) than posterior approach patients.2,5
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients consume less narcotics after surgery than patients with traditional approaches.1,2,14,16
- Compared to posterior approach patients, ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients consume less narcotics in the first three days after surgery16 and are less likely to be using narcotics for pain control at 2 and 6 weeks follow-up.2
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients reported 35% less opioid usage through the first 90 days post-operatively.13
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE utilizes industry-leading DePuy Synthes hip implants18 that are designed specifically for muscle-sparing techniques like the Anterior Approach and to act much like a natural hip, recreating smooth movement, increasing the joint’s stability and reducing pain. The DePuy Synthes implants used with the ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE have demonstrated positive patient outcomes and survivorship year after year17,18,20 and continues to innovate by designing products specifically for muscle-sparing techniques like the Anterior Approach.
Typically, in an ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE total hip replacement, both an orthopaedic table (also called a Hana® Table) and a “C” shaped x-ray machine (also called a C-arm) are used. The orthopaedic table allows the surgeon to better access the hip joint and gives them the ability to better align and position the implant. The C-arm allows surgeons to ensure that the implant is placed properly while the patient is still in the operating room rather than waiting for a postoperative x-ray to confirm implant placement.
In addition, only ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE provides your surgeon with exclusive tools and technologies like the KINCISE™ Surgical Automated System, a surgical device that enables your surgeon to automate and improve the precision of key steps in a hip replacement surgery. These technologies, along with the ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE training curriculum for surgeons, help facilitate a successful surgery.
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE can help you get back sooner to doing the things you love.2,5,11,16
Ask your doctor if the ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE is right for you.
- Petis SM, et al. “In Hospital Cost Analysis of THA: Does Surgical Approach Matter?” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2016; (31)” 53-58.
- Zawadsky MW, et al. “Early Outcome Comparison Between the Direct Anterior Approach and the Mini-Incision Posterior Approach for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: 150 Consecutive Cases.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2014; (29): 1256-1260.
- Martin CT, et al. “A Comparison of Hospital Length of Stay and Short-term Morbidity Between the Anterior and the Posterior Approaches to Total Hip Arthroplasty.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2013; (28): 849-854.
- Christensen CP, et al. “Comparison of Patient Function during the First Six Weeks after Direct Anterior or Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): A Randomized Study.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2015; (30): 94-97.
- Barrett WP, et al. “Prospective Randomized Study of Direct Anterior vs Postero-Lateral Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2013; (28): 1634-1638.
- Alecci V, et al. “Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings” J Orthopaed Traumatol 2010.7. Higgins BT, et al. 2015. JOA. “Anterior vs. posterior approach for THA, a systematic review and meta-analysis.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2015; (30): 419–434.
- Higgins BT, et al. 2018. JOA. “Anterior vs. posterior approach for THA, a systematic review and meta-analysis.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2015; (30): 419-434.
- Restrepo C, et al. “Prospective Randomized Study of Two Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2010; (25(5)): 671-679.
- Rodriguez JA, et al. “Does the Direct Anterior Approach in THA Offer Faster Rehabilitation and Comparable Safety to the Posterior Approach?” Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013.
- Vail TP, et al. “Approaches in Primary THA.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009; (91): 10-12.
- Bourne MH, et al. “A comparison between direct anterior surgery of the hip (DASH) and the anterolateral (AL) surgical approach to THA: Postoperative outcomes.” 2010 AAOS New Orleans, LA, Poster #014
- Kamath A, Chitnis A, Holy C, et al. Medical resource utilization and costs for total hip arthroplasty: benchmarking an anterior approach technique in the Medicare population. J Med Econ. 2017; 1-7.
- Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AK, Boettner F, Wright J. Does Surgical Approach Affect Outcomes in Total Hip Arthroplasty Through 90 Days of Follow-Up? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017: 33(4); 1296-1302.
- Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Kamath AT, Boettner F, Wright J, Bhattacharyya S. Influence of Surgical Approach on Long-Term Complication Risk in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acta Orthopaedica. 2018; 89: 1-7.
- Boettner F, Zingg M, Emara A, et al. The Accuracy of Acetabular Component Positioning Using a Novel Method to Determine Anteversion. JoA. 2017; (32): 1180-1185.
- Schweppe et al. Does Surgical Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty Affect Rehabilitation, Discharge Disposition, and Readmission Rate? Surgical Technology International XXIII. 2013. Orthopedic Surgery, 219-227.
- Jacquot L, Bonnin MP, Machenaud A, Choteau J, Saffarini M, Vidalain JP. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at 25-30 Years of a Hip Stem Fully Coated With Hydroxyapatite. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):482-490.
- NJR National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, 15th Annual Report, 2018. Table 3.9. Available from www.njrreports.org.uk
- TSM Report, PINNACLE WW implantations YTD, 2001 - 2017.
- Vidalain JP. 25-year ARTRO Results: A Special Vintage from the Old World. The CORAIL Hip System: A Practical approach based on 25 years of experience. 2011;Chapter 4.2.1:94-101
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
As with any medical treatment, individual results may vary. The performance of hip replacements depends on age, weight, activity level and other factors. There are potential risks and recovery takes time. If you have conditions that limit rehabilitation you should not have this surgery. Only an orthopaedic surgeon can tell you if hip replacement is right for you.