Which approach of total hip arthroplasty is the best efficacy and least complication?

Lertkong Nitiwarangkul, Natthapong Hongku, O. Pattanaprateep, S. Rattanasiri, P. Woratanarat, A. Thakkinstian
{"title":"Which approach of total hip arthroplasty is the best efficacy and least complication?","authors":"Lertkong Nitiwarangkul, Natthapong Hongku, O. Pattanaprateep, S. Rattanasiri, P. Woratanarat, A. Thakkinstian","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v15.i1.73","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n 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 percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPath).\n AIM\n To compare the efficacy and complications of hip approaches that have been published in all MAs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).\n METHODS\n 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 complication, 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.\n RESULTS\n 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.\n CONCLUSION\n 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.","PeriodicalId":506838,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"124 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i1.73","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 percutaneously-assisted 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 complication, 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪种全髋关节置换术方法疗效最好、并发症最少?
背景 全髋关节置换术是缓解疼痛和改善髋关节功能的有效干预措施。关于髋关节置换术的方法,人们已经对其利弊进行了详尽的探讨。髋关节方法的疗效和并发症仍无定论。本研究对以往的荟萃分析(MAs)进行了系统评估,包括传统的后路(PA)和微创手术,如外侧入路(LA)、直接前路(DAA)、双切口法、迷你外侧入路和最新的直接上路(DSA)或囊上经皮辅助全髋关节(SuperPath)技术。目的 比较所有MA和随机对照试验(RCT)中已发表的髋关节方法的疗效和并发症。方法:从 MEDLINE 和 Scopus 中查找从开始到 2023 年的 MA。然后从最新的 MA 中更新 RCT,直至 2023 年 9 月。本研究纳入了对髋关节置换方法进行比较并报告了至少一项结果的研究,如 Harris 髋关节评分 (HHS)、脱位、术中骨折、伤口并发症、神经损伤、手术时间、手术失血量、住院时间、切口长度和 VAS 疼痛。数据由两名审稿人独立选择、提取和评估。对治疗效果和安全性进行了网络 MA、群组排名和累积排名曲线下表面(SUCRA)估算。结果 最后,共检索到 28 项 MA(40 项 RCT)和 13 项 RCT。共有 47 项研究性试验被纳入重新分析。校正覆盖面积的结果显示出较高的覆盖率(13.80%)。在 47 项研究中,大部分研究在部分随机过程和结果报告方面的偏倚风险较低,而其他领域的偏倚风险为中高。DAA三个月后的HHS明显高于PA[汇总非标准化平均差(USMD):3.49,95%置信区间(CI):0.98,6.00,SUCRA:85.9],其次是DSA/SuperPath(USMD:1.57,95%CI:-1.55,4.69,SUCRA:57.6)。所有方法的脱位率和术中骨折率都很低。比较早期功能结果和综合并发症(脱位、术中骨折、伤口并发症和神经损伤)的 SUCRA 发现,DAA 是最佳方法,其次是 DSA/SuperPath。结论 DSA/SuperPath的早期功能效果优于PA,但仍无法超越DAA的效果。该技术可能是并发症可接受的另一种首选方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and associated factors of clubfoot in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia: A hospital-based study Smoking cessation prior to elective total joint arthroplasty results in sustained abstinence postoperatively Arthroscopic M-shaped suture fixation for tibia avulsion fracture of posterior cruciate ligament: A modified technique and case series Epidemiology of work-related hand and wrist injuries in a referral center: A descriptive study Intraoperative application of three-dimensional printed guides in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1