Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
Comparison of postoperative effectiveness of less invasive short external rotator sparing approach versus standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty.
Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI assessment of muscle damage after posterolateral versus SuperPATH approach for total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Piriformis preservation in total hip arthroplasty: do we have a new concept? An update on anatomy, function and clinical outcomes.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost of the studies assessing the corrective posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA) mainly focused on the mini-incision approach. Studies exploring the short external rotator sparing approach are rare. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of standard posterior approach and short external rotator sparing approach.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 126 patients who underwent THA in June 2017-June 2018. Patients were assigned to standard (standard posterior approach) and corrective (short external rotator sparing approach) groups based on the surgical method. Surgical data were recorded postoperatively. Postoperative hip joint recovery was assessed using the times to ambulation and independent stair use, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Harris score, and Oxford hip score (OHS) at 2 and 8 postoperative weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used for postoperative pain assessment.
resultsPostoperative changes of creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin, CRP, and prosthesis position were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001) and postoperative 6-h drainage volume (P = 0.03), hospital stay, blood transfusion rate, and times to ambulation and independent stair use were significantly reduced in the corrective group. Postoperatively, Oxford, and WOMAC scores significantly decreased in both groups. After surgery, the VAS score was more overtly decreased in the corrective group compared with the standard group.
conclusionsThis study concluded that the less invasive short external rotator sparing approach for THA caused less damage, reducing perioperative blood loss, shortening functional recovery time, maintaining prosthesis stability, and improving postoperative pain.
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.