ReviewCureus2024
Direct Anterior vs. Posterior Approach in Simultaneous Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty (SimBTHA) offers benefits such as reduced hospital stay and costs for patients with bilateral hip disease. However, the optimal surgical approach remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of SimBTHA performed via the direct anterior approach (DAA) versus the posterior approach (PA). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of SimBTHA using DAA and PA. The primary outcome was the incidence of allogeneic blood transfusions, while secondary outcomes included blood loss and surgical complications, such as dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, and infections. Six studies were included, analyzing 944 patients, with 372 undergoing SimBTHA via DAA and 572 via PA. No significant difference was observed in the number of allogeneic blood transfusions between the two approaches (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.43; p=0.63). DAA was associated with significantly lower blood loss compared to PA (MD = -31.51 mL; 95% CI: -43.07 to -19.94 mL; p=0.07). However, there was no significant difference in the rates of surgical complications between the two groups (RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.26; p=0.12). While DAA showed a benefit in reducing blood loss, it did not demonstrate superiority over PA regarding transfusion rates or surgical complications. These findings highlight the need for further randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies and longer follow-up periods to better assess the optimal approach for SimBTHA.
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.