SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2020
Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 7 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- SuperPATH versus traditional hip replacement in efficacy and safety: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of supercapsular percutaneously-assisted approach total hip arthroplasty versus conventional posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Hemiarthroplasty through SuperPATH versus hemiarthroplasty through conventional approaches in patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 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
- An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Total Hip Arthroplasty through SuperPATH versus Conventional Approaches.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between direct anterior approach (DAA) and SuperPATH in total hip replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the SuperPATH Approach in Hip Arthroplasty.BioMed research international · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of the early clinical efficacy of the SuperPath approach versus the modified Hardinge approach in total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Trial
- Novel fat infiltration combined with muscle parameters for predicting postoperative complications following total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy between Super-Path and Watson-Jones approaches in the management of early femoral head necrosis.Medicine · 2025Observational
- SuperPATH-Current Status of Evidence and Further Investigations: A Scoping Review and Quality Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive surgery supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPath) arthroplasty.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2023Article
- Article
- Radiographic results on acetabular cup placement with the SuperPath technique: a retrospective study of 756 cases.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Supercapsular Percutaneously-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Elderly With Femoral Neck Fractures: A Meta-analysis.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2022Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt remains uncertain if the new SuperPATH approach benefits patients in artificial hip joint replacement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the short-term outcome of SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip joint replacement.
methodsA systematic literature search up to April 2020 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing SuperPATH with conventional approaches in hip joint replacement. We measured surgical, functional, and radiological outcomes. Mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled using random effects models and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.
resultsA total of 12 RCTs involving 726 patients met the inclusion criteria, one trial with a level I evidence, 11 trials with level II evidence. The overall meta-analysis showed that SuperPATH approach reduced incision length (MD = - 4.84, 95% CI - 7.04 to - 2.64, p < 0.01), pain VAS 7 day postoperatively (MD = - 1.39, 95% CI - 2.57 to - 0.21, p = 0.03), and HHS 7 day postoperatively (MD = 10.24, 95% CI 0.27 to 20.21, p = 0.05). The two approaches did not differ in acetabular cup positioning angles, intra- and postoperative blood loss, hospitalization period, and postoperative complications. Hip replacement via SuperPATH approach had a longer operation time than hip replacement via conventional approaches.
conclusionsSuperPATH approach showed better results in decreasing incision length and early pain intensity as well as improvement of short-term functional outcome. Long-term outcomes of SuperPATH approach need to be investigated.
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.