Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2018
John Charnley Award: Randomized Clinical Trial of Direct Anterior and Miniposterior Approach THA: Which Provides Better Functional Recovery?
Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Early clinical efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Postoperative Harris Hip Score Versus Harris Hip Score Difference in Hip Replacement: What to Report?Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Indirect comparisons of traction table versus standard table in total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach: a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing direct anterior approach versus posterior approach or lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Direct and indirect comparisons in network meta-analysis of SuperPATH, direct anterior and posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes vary by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Posterior Hip Precautions Do Not Impact Early Recovery in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Trial
- Length of Hospital Stay between Direct Anterior Approach and Posterior Approach in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2026Article
- MRI assessment of muscle damage after posterolateral versus SuperPATH approach for total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Capsular reconstruction versus excision in anterolateral total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Acetabular component positioning after pelvic osteotomy: a retrospective comparison between the anterior and posterolateral approaches.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Direct anterior approach surgeons significantly overstate the benefits of this approach relative to other surgeons: a view of online promotion in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Evaluating the direct superior approach compared to the traditional posterior approach for hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Meta-Regression Analysis of the Association Between Acetabular Cup Positioning and Functional Outcome for Patients With Iliopsoas Impingement Syndrome After Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Dislocation incidence and risk factors following direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty: a consecutive, single-surgeon cohort.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes After Direct Anterior Versus Mini Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Directly anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty with an acetabular structural bone graft for developmental dysplasia of the hip (Crowe III and IV): a concise 5-year follow-up evaluation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Comparison of surgical efficacy between direct anterior approach and posterolateral approach in the treatment of sarcopenia with femoral neck fractures.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of surgical approach for THA remains controversial. Some studies suggest that the direct anterior approach (DAA) leads to less muscle damage than the miniposterior approach (MPA), but there is little high-quality evidence indicating whether this accelerates recovery, or whether this approach-which may be technically more demanding-is associated with component malposition or more complications. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the DAA result in faster return to activities of daily living than the MPA? (2) Does the DAA have superior patient-reported outcome measures than the MPA? (3) Does the DAA result in improved radiographic outcomes than the MPA? (4) Does the DAA have a higher risk of complications than the MPA?
methodsBetween March 1, 2013, and May 31, 2016, 116 patients undergoing primary unilateral THA were randomized to either the DAA or MPA; 15 patients withdrew after randomization, and one died 6 months after surgery from a stroke unrelated to the procedure. Recruitment stopped when 52 patients had been randomized into the DAA group and 49 in the MPA group (n = 101). After patient randomization, one high-volume surgeon performed all of the DAAs and three high-volume surgeons performed the MPA THAs. The groups did not differ in age (65 years; SD 11; range, 38-86 years), sex (52% women), or body mass index (mean 29 kg/m; SD 6 kg/m; range, 21-40 kg/m; all p > 0.40). Functional results included time to discontinue gait aids, discontinue all narcotics, and independence with various activities of daily living; accelerometer data evaluated activity level. Clinical and radiographic outcomes, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, SF-12, and Harris hip scores to 1 year were also tabulated. The minimum followup was 365 days (mean ± SD, 627 ± 369 days).
resultsThere were slight differences in early functional recovery that favored the DAA versus the MPA: time to discontinue walker use (10 versus 15 days, p = 0.01) and time to discontinue all gait aids (17 versus 24 days, p = 0.04). There were no other differences in early functional milestones, although at 2 weeks after surgery, mean steps per day were 3897 (SD 2258; range, 737-11,010) for the DAA versus 2235 for the MPA (SD 1688; range, 27-7450; p < 0.01). There was no difference in activity monitoring at 1 year. There were no differences in patient-reported outcome scores between the groups. There was no difference in the radiographic parameters measured in the two groups, including leg length discrepancy, component position, or offset, and there was no subsidence observed in any hip. There was no difference in complications between the DAA and the MPA groups (8% [four of 52] versus 10% [five of 49]; p = 0.33).
conclusionsBoth the DAA and MPA approaches provided excellent early recovery with a low risk of complications. Patients undergoing the DAA had a slightly faster recovery, as measured by milestones of function and quantified by activity monitor data, but no substantive differences were evident at 2 months. Because the DAA is the less studied approach, longer term (> 1 year) complications may yet accrue, will be important to quantify, and may offset early benefits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.