Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis|
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration
Police General Hospital
Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital
Samitivej Hospital (Sukhumvit)
Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
|Citation:||European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. Vol.28, No.2 (2018), 255-267|
|Abstract:||© 2017, Springer-Verlag France SAS. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is generally considered to be one of the most successful orthopedic surgical procedures. THA patients continue to experience symptoms, most commonly pain, which prevent their return to full function and activity. Possible causes include failure of fixation, instability and damage to soft tissues, associated with the trauma of the surgical procedure. Choosing the optimal surgical approach can minimize these risks and therefore improve the outcome of THA. Surgical approaches in THA include anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson–Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 techniques. However, there is no current consensus regarding which approach is the most suitable. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications among THA approach and identify which approach is the best for THA. We searched all RCT studies that compared intra-operative and postoperative outcomes of anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson–Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 approaches for THA from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 1, 2017. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. A network meta-analysis was applied to assess treatment outcomes. Probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Fourteen RCTs (N = 1017 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions were anterior (N = 233 patients), lateral (N = 334 patients), posterior (N = 405 patients) and posterior-2 (N = 45 patients) approaches. A network meta-analysis showed that effects of anterior approach were higher to lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches with the pooled mean postoperative within 1 month and last follow-up of HHS of 2.56 (95% CI − 0.79, 5.91), 4.80 (95% CI 1.33, 8.26), 10.80 (95% CI 2.10, 19.49) and 6.40 (95% CI 0.72, 12.09), 2.22 (95% CI − 3.21, 7.66), 4.22 (95% CI − 6.81, 15.25), respectively. For VAS, lateral approach was lower to anterior, posterior and posterior-2 approaches. In terms of complication, posterior approach was the lowest risk with RR of 0.39 (95% CI 0.19, 0.81), 0.57 (95% CI 0.21, 1.57) and 1.74 (95% CI 0.36, 8.33) when compared to anterior, followed by lateral and posterior-2 approaches. Results of SUCRA indicated anterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative HHS and VAS score, while posterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative complications. We recommended using lateral approach that has an acceptable postoperative pain, function and complications (second rank for all outcomes) as a surgical technique for THA.|
|Appears in Collections:||Scopus 2018|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.