Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Direct superior approach versus posterolateral approach in mid-term clinical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare mid-term clinical outcome of direct superior approach (DSA) and posterolateral approach (PLA) in THA.
methodSeventy-eight patients who underwent THA from January 2021 to June 2021 were prospectively enrolled and randomly allocated into DSA group and PLA group. The surgical duration, incision length, total blood loss, ambulation time, visual analogue scale (VAS), patient satisfaction, Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, postoperative leg length discrepancy (LLD), abduction angle, anteversion angle and complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsThirty three patients were randomized to the PLA group and 32 patients allocated to the DSA group. The average follow-up period was 39.8 months in DSA group and 40.1 months in PLA group. Compared with PLA group, DSA group had longer surgical duration ([124.1 ± 11.2] min vs. [103.3 ± 20.7] min), less total blood loss ([482.4 ± 236.1] ml vs. [680.2 ± 299.4] ml), shorter incision ([8.7 ± 1.9] cm vs. [15.6 ± 1.7] cm), and earlier ambulation time ([15.8 ± 4.0] h vs. [20.5 ± 3.5] h), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the DSA group had significantly lower WOMAC Scores compared to the PLA group at 1-year postoperatively (P = 0.011), and had significantly lower WOMAC Function Scores and WOMAC Stiffness Scores both at 1-year postoperatively and at the last follow-up. The anteversion angle of the cup in the DSA Group was significantly smaller than the PLA Group at postoperative day (POD) 3 and the last follow-up (P = 0.006 and P = 0.010, respectively). However, there was no difference in postoperative patient satisfaction, complication, LLD or HHS between the two groups.
conclusionDSA demonstrated benefits in terms of reduced blood loss, improved pain scores, shorter incisions, and earlier ambulation. These advantages support the use of DSA for promoting early recovery and better mid-term functional outcomes.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR) with the register number ChiCTR2000041186 (registration date: 2020/12/21).
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.