Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32560737›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

The direct superior approach versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: study protocol for a prospective double-blinded randomised control trial.

Babar Kayani, Sujith Konan, Jenni Tahmassebi, Atif Ayuob, Fares S Haddad

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04191993 (A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Direct Superior Approach Versus the Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04191993 nacompletednot on this map

A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Direct Superior Approach Versus the Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2018 to 2022Enrolled80ConditionsSurgery, Surgical Incision, Patient SatisfactionArmsTotal hip arthroplasty
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Babar KayaniDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU, UK. babar.kayani@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6611-3989
Sujith KonanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Jenni TahmassebiDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Atif AyuobDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Fares S HaddadDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe direct superior approach (DSA) is a minimally invasive modification of the posterior approach (PA) that preserves the iliotibial band and short external rotators except for the piriformis or conjoint tendon during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study is to compare patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning, component stability, gait, cost-effectiveness, and complications in the DSA versus PA for THA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective double-blinded randomised control trial will include 80 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing primary THA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to THA using the PA (control group) or DSA (investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Blinded observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning, gait analysis on force plate treadmill, implant migration with radiosteriometric analysis, cost-effectiveness, and complications. A superiority study design will be used to evaluate whether the DSA provides improved outcomes compared to the PA for THA. Evaluation of study outcomes in DSA and PA will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent t test, paired t test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Fulham Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK. DISCUSSION: This study compares a comprehensive and robust range of clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes in THA performed using the PA versus DSA. The findings of this study will provide an improved understanding of the differences in the PA versus DSA for THA with respect to patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, gait, cost-effectiveness, and complications.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04191993. Registered on 10 December 2019.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipDouble-Blind MethodHip JointHumansLondonMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOsteoarthritis, HipPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32560737
PMCPMC7304085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.