SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Postless versus traditional hip arthroscopy: A multilevel meta-analysis of current evidence on efficacy and safety.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Agreement between ChatGPT and human-derived multilevel meta-analyses: a reproducibility study across clinical evidence syntheses.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Postless versus traditional hip arthroscopy: A multilevel meta-analysis of current evidence on efficacy and safety.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo date, no meta-analysis has systematically compared postless and post-assisted hip arthroscopy (HAS). This underscores the need for a structured synthesis of current evidence. To address this gap, a multilevel meta-analysis was conducted to systematically compare outcomes and complication rates of HAS performed with and without a perineal post.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, and CENTRAL was completed on 20 July 2025. A frequentist multilevel meta-analysis with random-effects modelling and Hartung-Knapp adjustment was conducted. Outcomes were summarised as pooled mean differences and proportions with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsEight primary studies including 1880 hips were analysed. The pooled nerve injury rate was higher in the traditional HAS group (7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.36) compared to the postless group (3%; 95% CI: 0.00-0.20), with a significant subgroup difference (F = 10.81; p < 0.01). Mean traction time was longer in the traditional group (58.5 min) than in the postless group (52.2 min), also with a significant difference (F = 32.96; df = 1.50; p < 0.01). Other subgroup comparisons showed no significant differences.
conclusionWhile trends suggest potential advantages of postless hip arthroscopy in certain outcomes, the evidence remains limited by study heterogeneity and design. These results support its growing clinical use, though further prospective comparative studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.