No abstract

Background Two minimally invasive approaches showed some advantages in outcomes compared to conventional approaches (CAs)—the direct anterior approach (DAA) and the supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach in THA (SuperPATH). To the best of our knowledge, DAA and SuperPATH have never been compared, neither in clinical studies, nor in a meta-analysis. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing short-term outcomes of DAA and SuperPATH in total hip joint arthroplasty (THA). Methods A systematic literature search up to May 2020 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SuperPATH with CAs and DAA with CAs in THA. We measured surgical, functional, and radiological outcomes. A network meta-analysis, using frequentist methods, was performed to assess treatment effects between DAA and SuperPATH. Information was borrowed from the above-mentioned RCTs, using the CA group as a common comparator. Results A total of 16 RCTs involving 1392 patients met the inclusion criteria, three trials with a level I evidence, 13 trials with a level II evidence. The overall network meta-analysis showed that SuperPATH reduced operation time (fixed effect model: MD = 12.8, 95% CI 9.9 to 15.7), incision length (fixed effect model: MD = 4.3, 95% CI 4.0 to 4.5; random effect model: MD = 4.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 8.4), intraoperative blood loss (fixed effect model: MD = 58.6, 95% CI 40.4 to 76.8), and early pain intensity (VAS 1 day postoperatively with a fixed effect model: MD = 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). The two approaches did not differ in acetabular cup positioning angles and in functional outcome. Conclusions Our overall findings suggested that the short-term outcomes of THA through SuperPATH were superior to DAA. SuperPATH showed better results in decreasing operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and early pain intensity. DAA and SuperPATH were equal in functional outcome and acetabular cup positioning.

SuperPATH is a novel approach to the hip joint that needs to be compared to other known surgical approaches. To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term outcomes of SuperPATH, direct anterior (DAA), and posterior/ posterolateral approaches (PA) in total hip joint arthroplasty (THA). We performed a systematic review on PubMed, CNKI, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar up to November 30th, 2021. We assessed treatment effects between SuperPATH, DAA, and PA by performing a frequentist NMA, including a total of 20 RCTs involving 1501 patients. SuperPATH showed a longer operation time (MD = 16.99, 95% CI 4.92 to 29.07), a shorter incision length (MD = −4.71, 95% CI −6.21 to −3.22), a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD = −81.75, 95% CI  −114.78 to −48.72), a higher HHS 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD = 2.59, 95% CI 0.59–4.6; MD = 2.14, 95% CI 0.5–3.77; MD = 0.6, 95% CI 0.03–1.17, respectively) than PA. DAA showed a higher intraoperative blood loss than PA and SuperPATH (MD = 91.87, 95% CI  27.99–155.74; MD = 173.62, 95% CI 101.71–245.53, respectively). No other relevant differences were found. In conclusion, the overall findings suggested that the short-term outcomes of THA through SuperPATH were statistically superior to PA. DAA and PA as well as SuperPATH and DAA showed indifferent results.

Objectives Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses on short-term outcomes between total hip arthroplasty (THA) through direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to THA through conventional (including anterior, anterolateral, lateral transgluteal, lateral transtrochanteric, posterior, and posterolateral) approaches (CAs) in treatment of hip diseases and fractures showed contradicting conclusions. Our aim was to draw definitive conclusions by conducting both a fixed and random model meta-analysis of quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and by comparison with related meta-analyses. Design We performed a systematic literature search up to May 2020 to identify RCTs, comparing THA through DAA with THA through CAs and related meta-analyses. We conducted risk of bias and level of evidence assessment in accordance with the Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2 tool and with the guidelines of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We estimated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) through fixed and random effects models, using the DerSimonian and Laird method. Heterogeneity was assessed using tau-square (τ2). Our conclusions take into account the overall results from related meta-analyses. Results Nine studies on THA through DAA met the criteria for final meta-analysis, involving 998 patients. Three studies were blinded RCTs with a level I evidence, the other 6 studies were non-blinded RCTs with a level II evidence. We came to the following results for THA through DAA compared to THA through CAs: operation time (I2 = 92%, p<0.01; fixed: MD = 15.1, 95% CI 13.1 to 17.1; random: MD = 18.1, 95% CI 8.6 to 27.5); incision length (I2 = 100%, p<0.01; fixed: MD = -2.9, 95% CI -3.0 to -2.8; MD = -1.1, 95% CI -4.3 to 2.0); intraoperative blood loss (I2 = 87%, p<0.01; fixed: MD = 51.5, 95% CI 34.1 to 68.8; random: MD = 51.9, 95% CI -89.8 to 193.5); VAS 1 day postoperatively (I2 = 79%, p = 0.03; fixed: MD = -0.8, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.4; random: MD = -0.9, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.15); HHS 3 months postoperatively (I2 = 52%, p = 0.08; fixed: MD = 2.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.6; random: MD = 3.0, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.5); HHS 6 months postoperatively (I2 = 0%, p = 0.67; fixed: MD = 0.9, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.9; random: MD = 0.9, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.9); HHS 12 months postoperatively (I2 = 0%, p = 0.79; fixed: MD = 0.7, 95% CI -0.9 to 2.4; random: MD = 0.7, 95% CI -0.9 to 2.4). We compared our findings with 7 related meta-analyses. Conclusions Considering the results of our meta-analysis and the review of related meta-analyses, we can conclude that short-term outcomes of THA through DAA were overall better than THA through CAs. THA through DAA had a shorter incision length, a tendency towards a lower pain VAS 1 day postoperatively and better early postoperative functional outcome than THA through CAs. The intraoperative blood loss showed indifferent results. THA through DAA had a longer operation time than THA through CAs.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses on short-term outcomes between total hip arthroplasty (THA) through direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to THA through conventional approaches (CAs) in treatment of hip diseases and fractures. We performed a systematic literature search up to March 1, 2021 to identify RCTs, comparing THA through DAA with THA through CAs. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes, using the DerSimonian and Laird method and a random effects model. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, using the Mantel–Haenszel method and a random effects model. Ten RCTs met the criteria for final meta-analysis, involving 1053 patients. Four studies were blinded RCTs with a level I evidence, the other 6 studies were non-blinded RCTs with a level II evidence. DAA had a longer operation time than CAs (MD = 17.8, 95% CI  4.8 to 30.8); DAA had similar results compared to CAs for incision length (MD = − 1.1, 95% CI − 4.1 to 1.8), for intraoperative blood loss (MD = 67.2, 95% CI − 34.8 to 169.1), for HHS 3 months postoperatively (MD = 2.4, 95% CI − 0.7 to 5.5), for HHS 6 months postoperatively (MD = 0.8, 95% CI − 1.9 to 3.5), for HHS 12 months postoperatively (MD = 0.9, 95% CI − 0.7 to 2.5), for pain VAS 1 day postoperatively (MD = − 0.9, 95% CI − 2.0 to 0.15), for acetabular cup anteversion angle (MD = − 4.3, 95% CI − 5.2 to − 3.5), for acetabular cup inclination angle (MD = − 0.5, 95% CI − 2.1 to 1.1) and for postoperative complications (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 12.4). Considering the overall results of our meta-analysis, we can conclude that THA through DAA showed similar short-term surgical, functional, radiological outcomes and postoperative complications compared to THA through CAs.