ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
Evaluating the direct superior approach compared to the traditional posterior approach for hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 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.
- MRI assessment of muscle damage after posterolateral versus SuperPATH approach for total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The direct superior approach (DSA) has recently emerged as a minimally invasive substitute for the posterior approach (PA) in hip arthroplasty (HA), with the potential to provide better perioperative and functional outcomes. Nevertheless, the current evidence comparing the two approaches is limited and conflicting. Hence, we carried out this study to assess the DSA compared to PA in patients undergoing HA. Methods: A comprehensive search, encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted from inception until April 2025. Studies that compare DSA to PA for patients undergoing HA were included. The primary outcome was the duration of hospital stay, while the secondary outcomes were incision length, functional outcomes, discharge, surgery revision rates, and complications. Mean difference (MD) with a 95 % confidence interval (C.I.) was employed for pooling the continuous variables, while the categorical data were analysed as risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % CI. Results: Twelve studies, incorporating 147,098 patients, constituted our review. Our pooled estimate favored the DSA in decreasing the duration of hospital stay (MD = -0.95, 95 % CI [-1.32 to -0.57], p = 0.001), and shortening the incision length (MD = -5.16, 95 % CI [-6.48 to -3.85], p = 0.001) compared to the PA. Furthermore, DSA showed notably lower VAS pain scores (MD = -0.39, 95 % CI [-0.69 to -0.09], p = 0.01) and a reduced risk of discharge to rehabilitation (RR = 0.55, 95 % CI [0.40 to 0.75], p = 0.001). However, our pooled analysis did not detect significant differences between the two approaches regarding functional scores, such as HOOS subscales, HHS, OHS, WOMAC, revision rate, and complications. Conclusion: DSA was associated with a lower hospital stay, shorter incision length, and lower VAS pain scores than the PA. Additionally, no substantial differences were detected regarding functional parameters or complications.
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.