Introduction: Posterolateral approach (PA) has been historically associated with an increased risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially when compared with the direct anterior approach (DAA). However, current evidence is inconsistent regarding the risk of dislocation with either approach. The purpose of this study is to determine whether surgical approach influences joint stability. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing DAA with PA in primary THA were included. Pooled effect measure of risk differences, relative risk and mean differences for postoperative dislocation, acetabular implant positioning, and leg length discrepancy were calculated. Results: Twenty-five studies (5 RCTs and 20 non-RCTs) of 7,172 THAs were assessed. There were no significant differences in dislocation rates between approaches (risk difference = −0.00, 95% confidence interval: −0.01 to 0.00; P = 0.92; I2 = 0%). Results were similar in the subgroup analysis of RCTs (P = 0.98), posterior soft-tissue repair (P = 0.50), and learning curve (P = 0.77). The acetabular implant was better positioned within the safe zone in the DAA group (relative risk = 1.17; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.33; P = 0.01), but no significant differences were found in cup inclination (P = 0.8), anteversion (P = 0.10), and leg length discrepancy (P = 0.54). Conclusion: Dislocation rates after THA are not different between DAA and PA. Furthermore, no differences in the rate of dislocation were associated with cup positioning or surgical factors related with hip instability. Therefore, the surgical approach has little influence in prosthesis instability after primary THA. Level of Evidence: Level III

We conclude that the use of an intraoperative measurement device can reduce the leg length discrepancy, with best results when using the trochanteric/joint ratio device.

Purpose. To describe the implementation of a postfracture care program in a private hospital in Colombia, the results achieved after the program’s first year, and the challenges encountered. Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive study of the first year’s outcomes. The program was implemented following best practices described in the “Capture the Fracture” framework. We assessed the management of fractures before the launch of the program. A multidisciplinary group was established to collaborate on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures. A full-time program coordinator was appointed. We analyzed the program’s clinical outcomes and limitations. Results. One-hundred and ninety patients were included in the study, with an average age of 76.7. Hip fracture was the most frequent one (33.6%). After the first year of implementing the program, 39.4% of patients received osteoporosis treatment, with an adherence rate of 73%. The incidence of subsequent falls was 5.8% and 1% for new fractures. Conclusions. The implementation of a program for patients’ care with fragility fractures is challenging for healthcare institutions. The role of a full-time coordinator is critical for the proper operation of such programs.

No abstract