SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
SuperPATH versus traditional hip replacement in efficacy and safety: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
- Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty versus minimally invasive hemiarthroplasty for geriatric femoral neck fractures: efficacy and impact on inflammatory and stress markers.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHip replacement is a popular orthopedic surgery. The methods include SuperPATH and traditional hip replacement. The efficacy and safety of SuperPATH vs. traditional hip replacement might be an intriguing topic.
methodsThe SuperPATH vs. traditional hip replacement comparison for the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, postoperative pain and hip scores were set for the current systematic review and meta-analysis, which can help us determine the differences in the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, postoperative pain severity and postoperative hip function between the 2 groups. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible and 9 RCTs (299 patients with the superPATH, and 379 patients with traditional hip replacement) were enrolled. We focused on the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, pain, and hip function after orthopedic surgery.
resultsThe meta-analytic results showed that SuperPATH might be associated with a significantly shorter incision length and hospitalization duration. In addition, the postoperative pain severity was lower and the postoperative hip function was better in the SuperPATH group when compared to traditional hip replacement.
conclusionsThe SuperPATH might be beneficial for patients with hip replacement surgery when compared to the traditional hip replacement from the perspective of incision length, hospitalization, pain severity, and hip function. Further RCT studies with a more homogeneous study design and a greater sample size might be warranted in the future.
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.