Which approach of total hip arthroplasty is the best efficacy and least complication?
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
22185836
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85185525332
Journal Title
World Journal of Orthopedics
Volume
15
Issue
1
Start Page
73
End Page
93
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
World Journal of Orthopedics Vol.15 No.1 (2024) , 73-93
Suggested Citation
Nitiwarangkul L., Hongku N., Pattanaprateep O., Rattanasiri S., Woratanarat P., Thakkinstian A. Which approach of total hip arthroplasty is the best efficacy and least complication?. World Journal of Orthopedics Vol.15 No.1 (2024) , 73-93. 93. doi:10.5312/wjo.v15.i1.73 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/97400
Title
Which approach of total hip arthroplasty is the best efficacy and least complication?
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
BACKGROUND Total hip arthroplasty is as an effective intervention to relieve pain and improve hip function. Approaches of the hip have been exhaustively explored about pros and cons. The efficacy and the complications of hip approaches remains inconclusive. This study conducted an umbrella review to systematically appraise previous meta-analysis (MAs) including conventional posterior approach (PA), and minimally invasive surgeries as the lateral approach (LA), direct anterior approach (DAA), 2-incisions method, mini-lateral approach and the newest technique direct superior approach (DSA) or supercapsular percutaneouslyassisted total hip (SuperPath). AIM To compare the efficacy and complications of hip approaches that have been published in all MAs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS MAs were identified from MEDLINE and Scopus from inception until 2023. RCTs were then updated from the latest MA to September 2023. This study included studies which compared hip approaches and reported at least one outcome such as Harris Hip Score (HHS), dislocation, intra-operative fracture, wound compli cation, nerve injury, operative time, operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, incision length and VAS pain. Data were independently selected, extracted and assessed by two reviewers. Network MA and cluster rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were estimated for treatment efficacy and safety. RESULTS Finally, twenty-eight MAs (40 RCTs), and 13 RCTs were retrieved. In total 47 RCTs were included for reanalysis. The results of corrected covered area showed high degree (13.80%). Among 47 RCTs, most of the studies were low risk of bias in part of random process and outcome reporting, while other domains were medium to high risk of bias. DAA significantly provided higher HHS at three months than PA [pooled unstandardized mean difference (USMD): 3.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 6.00 with SUCRA: 85.9], followed by DSA/SuperPath (USMD: 1.57, 95%CI: -1.55, 4.69 with SUCRA: 57.6). All approaches had indifferent dislocation and intraoperative fracture rates. SUCRA comparing early functional outcome and composite complications (dislocation, intra-operative fracture, wound complication, and nerve injury) found DAA was the best approach followed by DSA/SuperPath. CONCLUSION DSA/SuperPath had better earlier functional outcome than PA, but still could not overcome the result of DAA. This technique might be the other preferred option with acceptable complications.