Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
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.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early clinical efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- SuperPATH versus traditional hip replacement in efficacy and safety: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the SuperPath Versus Hardinge Approach in Total Hip Replacement for Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
- SuperPATH-Current Status of Evidence and Further Investigations: A Scoping Review and Quality Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical efficacy and advantages of the SuperPath approach for total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly population.
methodsFrom February 2018 to March 2019, 120 patients were randomly divided into two groups with 60 patients each: the SuperPath group and the conventional group. The results evaluated included the general operation situation, serum markers, blood loss, pain score, hip function and prosthesis location analysis.
resultsThere was no demographic difference between the two groups. Compared with the conventional group, the SuperPath group had a shorter operation time (78.4 vs. 93.0 min, p = 0.000), a smaller incision length (5.8 vs. 12.5 cm, p = 0.000), less intraoperative blood loss (121.5 vs. 178.8 ml, p = 0.000), a shorter hospitalization time (8.0 vs. 10.8 days, p = 0.000) and less drainage volume (77.8 vs. 141.2 ml, p = 0.000). The creatine kinase level in the SuperPath group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group, while there was no difference in the C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate level. The visual analog scale score was lower one month postoperatively, and the Harris hip score was higher three months postoperatively in the SuperPath group (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the cup abduction angle or anteversion angle of the two groups.
conclusionWe found better clinical efficacy after using the SuperPath approach with less muscle damage, less postoperative pain and better postoperative function than after using the modified Hardinge approach. Trial registration The randomized clinical trial was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 31/12/2020 (ChiCTR-2000041583, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=57008 ).
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.