ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Total hip replacement performed via a direct anterior approach: A comparison of the lateral and supine position.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The direct anterior approach (DA) is a recognised approach for performing a total hip replacement (THR). Proponents cite improved recovery times, lower pain levels and improved patient satisfaction in the early post operative period. The procedure can be performed in the supine or lateral position. We wanted to compare the direct anterior approach in lateral decubitus (LD) position and supine (SU) position. Methods: Single site, non-randomised, multiple surgeon retrospective cohort study between 2014 and 2021 to compare outcomes, complications and implant position for patients undergoing DAA THR in the SU or LD position. Results: A total of 39 patients (22 lateral/17 supine) were identified. Patients had an average follow up of 45 months (17-81). 95% of the cohort were ASA 1 or 2. The majority of cases were uncemented (95%). A greater implant selection was used in the lateral group and the supine group used mainly implants associated with the supine table. No significant differences were found in post operative oxford hip scores, haemoglobin, length of stay, operative time, cup inclination, offset or post operative leg length. There were no recorded intra-operative complications in the LA group and two in the SU group - one calcar fracture and one canal perforation. No patient in either group has undergone a revision procedure. Conclusion: Both the supine and lateral position have resulted in satisfactory patient and radiological outcomes. We identified a higher rate of intra-operative fracture in the supine group which is comparable with existing literature. Given the similar outcomes between both groups we would suggest that surgeons wishing to consider the DAA may consider performing this in the lateral position as this will be more familiar to them, they will be able to use their existing implants and do not need a specialised operating table.
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.