ReviewDer Orthopade2012
[Clinical results of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty].
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- One-stage bilateral implantation of a calcar-guided short-stem in total hip arthroplasty : Minimally invasive modified anterolateral approach in supine position.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2017Review
- Intravenous infusion of magnesium sulphate during subarachnoid anaesthesia in hip surgery and its effect on postoperative analgesia: our experience.Translational medicine @ UniSa · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis article presents an analysis and review of recent literature with a focus on clinical results after minimally invasive (MIS) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and with special attention to the different approaches currently used.
methodsAn online database (Medline) search for clinical trials after THA between 2007 and 2011 was performed with a special focus on prospective controlled randomized trials focusing on THA with a MIS approach. The data were analyzed for pain, blood loss, complications, gait analysis, Harris hip and other scores.
resultsA total of 24 studies (19 comparative studies) were included in this study with a total of 801 MIS THA cases and 695 conventionally operated hips. Almost every study showed superior results for the MIS group with respect to postoperative pain, blood loss and rehabilitation but these advantages almost totally disappeared after 3-6 months. The complication rate was comparable in both groups. After 3-6 months the clinical scores, such as the Harris hip score did not show any differences between conventional and MIS groups.
conclusionsIn this present study all MIS approaches showed advantages over the conventional surgical approach but these benefits disappeared after 3-6 months. With comparable risks for complications, MIS surgical approaches are superior in the early postoperative phase and rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22581150What 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.