Anterior Approach Hip Replacement

AA matta method benefits graph

Click here for more information on ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™

joel m aa matta method


Dr. Matta is an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in Hip Disorders related to Preservation, Replacement and Fractures at The Steadman Clinic in Vail, CO, the co-founder and chairman of the Anterior Hip Foundation (AHF,, and the author of over 100 publications and videos on hip replacement and pelvic surgery.


Help your patients get back sooner with the Anterior Approach

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a clinically and cost-effective procedure with patients typically experiencing meaningful improvements in function and pain relief.The shift towards value-based healthcare and the need to deliver more in a financially constrained environment means healthcare providers are increasingly looking for ways to improve outcomes and the cost effectiveness of procedures.

The Anterior Approach is a surgical approach which allows surgeons to work between the muscles and tissues without the need to release any muscles or tendons from the pelvis or femur. An increasing body of evidence suggests Anterior Approach supports faster recovery,3,4 improvements in short term outcomes3,5 and reductions in the total cost of care;1,2,6whilst also showing equivalent mid-term THA survivorship.7

ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement is a differentiated solution for Anterior Approach, inclusive of DePuy Synthes hip implant products, intra-operative image check, use of Hana™ or other orthopaedic table, and world class professional education. These are designed to help decrease the learning curve, increase OR efficiencies and surgical reproducibility, with the goal of better patient outcomes. The ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement combines the benefits of Anterior Approach with additional benefits and demonstrated cost savings.1,2,6



  • 30% Shorter Hospital Stay1
  • Lower pain severity at two-weeks than posterior approach patients at two-week follow-up (2.7 vs 5.2, p<0.0001)8
  • Faster Recovery - ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement subjects walked farther post-operatively, and on days 2 and 3, compared to posterior approach patients.9
  • One study showed that ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement patients consumed 50% less narcotics after THA compared to Posterior Approach patients.6
  • 35% lower rate of dislocation5
  • 18% more patients discharged to home1


  • Registry data from Australia and Norway demonstrate no statistical difference in THA survivorship rates between Anterior Approach and posterior approach at 3 and 5 year follow up respectively.7


  • $6,200 cost savings per patients with ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement compared to the cohort of all other THA.2
  • 45% cost reduction at 90 days post-operative with ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ MATTA METHOD™ Hip Replacement compared to all other THA.1


  1. Kamath AF, Chitnis AS, Holy C, Lerner J, Curtin B, Lochow S, DeCook C, Matta JM. Medical resource utilization and costs for total hip arthroplasty: benchmarking an anterior approach technique in the Medicare population. Journal of medical economics. 2018 Feb 1;21(2):218-24.
  2. Miller LE, Martinson MS, Gondusky JS, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Bhattacharyya SK. Ninety-day postoperative cost in primary total hip arthroplasty: an economic model comparing surgical approaches. ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research. 2019; 11: 145-149.
  3. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J. Does Surgical Approach Affect Outcomes in Total HipArthroplasty Through 90 Days Follow-up? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. The Journal of arthroplasty. 2017 Nov 14.
  4. Miller LE, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Bhattacharyya SK. In-hospital outcomes with anterior versus posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Pain Research. 2018 Jan 1;11:1327-34.
  5. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J, Bhattacharyya S. Influence of surgical approach on complication risk in primary total hip arthroplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta orthopaedica. 2018 May 4;89(3):289-94.
  6. Petis SM, Howard JL, Lanting BA, Marsh JD, Vasarhelyi EM. In-hospital cost analysis of total hip arthroplasty: does surgical approach matter?. The Journal of arthroplasty. 2016 Jan 1;31(1):53-8.
  7. Mjaaland KE, Svenningsen S, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Nordsle. Implant survival after minimally invasive anterior or anterolateral vs. conventional posterior or direct lateral approach: an analysis of 21,860 total hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2008 to 2013). JBJS. 2017 May 17;99(10):840-7.
  8. 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. (Ant Adv)
  9. 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.

124112-210420 DSUS

Please refer to the instructions for use for a complete list of indications, contraindications, warnings and precautions.

MATTA METHODTM is a trademark of Joel Matta, MD