Trial reportActa orthopaedica2025
Direct anterior and direct lateral approach in patients with femoral neck fractures receiving a total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of direct anterior approach versus conventional surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe optimal approach to the hip joint in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (dFNF) receiving a total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. We compared the direct lateral approach (DLA) with the direct anterior approach (DAA) primarily on Timed Up and Go (TUG), and secondarily on the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EQ5D-5L, and the EQ5D-VAS.
methodsBetween 2018 and 2023, we conducted a randomized controlled trial including elderly patients with dFNFs treated with THA. The primary outcome was the difference in TUG at 6 weeks postoperatively. Key secondary outcomes were TUG at 2, 12, and at 52 weeks postoperatively, and FJS, OHS, EQ5D-5L, and EQ5D-VAS at 2, 6, 12, and at 52 weeks postoperatively.
results130 patients with a mean age of 78.6 (standard deviation 1.2) were allocated to DAA (n = 64) or DLA (n = 66). There was no statistically significant difference in TUG times at 6 weeks postoperatively between the DAA and the DLA, 16.0 s (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.2-18.7) vs 17.8 s (CI 15.1-20.4), estimated mean difference -1.8 s (CI -5.7 to 2.0). However, patients who underwent DAA had a significantly higher FJS at 2, 6, and 12 weeks.
conclusionAmong elderly patients with dFNF we found no difference between DAA or DLA regarding crude mobility as demonstrated with the TUG test, but patients treated with DAA showed better outcomes in the FJS in the early post-fracture period though not at 52 weeks.
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.