SynthesisDer Orthopade2011
[Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty - trend or state of the art?: A meta-analysis].
Synthesis in Der Orthopade, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting and its importance in total joint arthroplasty].Der Orthopade · 2012Review
- [Prevention of periprosthetic joint infections].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive approaches in total hip arthroplasty are being used worldwide and continue to grow in popularity. Despite early reports of catastrophic failures, both the number of scientific publications as well as the number of orthopaedic surgeons practicing minimally invasive techniques in total hip arthroplasty are steadily increasing. By means of a systematic review of the literature, the current article weighs the potential advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive techniques. A shorter skin incision, potentially less muscle damage, a faster rehabilitation and a clinically irrelevant lower blood loss may support the use of minimally invasive techniques. However, the potential impairment of wound cosmetics, the increased risk of periprosthetic fractures, implant malpositioning and lack of long-term results contradict the use of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty as a standard treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21479616What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.