ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022
Effects of the direct anterior approach and Orthopadisehe Chirurgie Munchen on early joint function after primary hip arthroplasty in young adults.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hidden blood loss in total hip arthroplasty: A comparison of the direct anterior versus posterolateral approach.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of surgical approaches on stem position and hidden blood loss in total hip arthroplasty: minimally invasive vs. posterolateral.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) and Orthopadisehe Chirurgie Munchen (OCM) in the prone position on early joint function after primary hip arthroplasty in young adults.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, 85 patients who received primary hip arthroplasty between September 2018 and January 2020 were enrolled and divided into the OCM group (43 cases with OCM) and the DAA group (42 cases with DAA) according to the different surgical methods. The general operative conditions, postoperative conditions and imaging manifestations, postoperative pain, changes in WOMAC scale scores, and the occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe operation time of the OCM group was shorter, and the blood loss and drainage volume in the OCM group during the operation were lower than those of the DAA group (
conclusionCompared with the DAA group, the OCM group had shorter operative time, quicker recovery after surgery, and lower postoperative pain scores. In the long term, these two surgical methods showed little difference in hip joint function recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35422899PMC8991164W4225749810What 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.