You are about to leave jnjmedicaldevices.com. By clicking to continue, you will be taken to a web site governed by their own Legal and Privacy Policies.
Potential Benefits of
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ helps you get back sooner2,5,11,15 to living your life.
Find a Doctor
Spend Less Time in the Hospital
- 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.1,2,5,12,15
- 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
Experience a Faster Recovery
- Scientific data supports that ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ patients spend less time in recovery facilities1,2,5,12,15 and return to daily activity faster than patients treated with other procedures.2,5,11,12,15
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE can help you perform daily activities earlier in your recovery. This means that you may have more freedom to walk without support,2,5,15 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
Experience Less Pain
- 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
Use Less Narcotics to Relieve Pain After Surgery
- ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE™ patients consume less narcotics after surgery than patients with traditional approaches.1,2,14,15
- Compared to posterior approach patients, ANTERIOR ADVANTAGE patients consume less narcotics in the first three days after surgery15 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
Ask your doctor if
ANTERIOR ADVANTAGETM is right for you.
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.
1. Petis SM, et al. “In Hospital Cost Analysis of THA: Does Surgical Approach Matter?” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2016; (31)” 53-58.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Restrepo C, et al. “Prospective Randomized Study of Two Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 2010; (25(5)): 671-679.
9. 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.
10. Vail TP, et al. “Approaches in Primary THA.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009; (91): 10-12.
11. 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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.