ReviewDer Orthopade2012
[The minimally invasive anterolateral approach. A review of the literature].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2012. 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.
- Functional Recovery After Hip Arthroplasty with a Minimal Invasive or Classical Approach Eight Years After Intervention.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- CORR Insights™: Is limited incision better than standard total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The minimally invasive anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is used with modifications on the basis of the Watson Jones approach and the approach by Hardinge. Compared to other approaches no disadvantages were found in the majority of studies concerning surgical time, blood loss, pain and complications concerning this approach. Laboratory studies described less damage to the gluteus muscles. These results are supported by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies and seem to be more important in older patients. The functional results are partially contradictory although there are no indications of any disadvantages. Increased complications in the form of fractures or malpositioning of implants can be interpreted as a result of a learning curve. A shorter stay in hospital has to be interpreted in the context of the local requirements of the respective health service. The evaluation of minimally invasive techniques carried out in reviews and meta-analyses does not distinguish between different approaches and is based on different time periods and selection criteria. Thus, the conclusions drawn cannot be absolutely applied to the minimally invasive anterolateral approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22581147What 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.