ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2025
Bikini versus Traditional Incision in DAA THA: Patient Satisfaction, Surgeon Observation, and LFCN Damage.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The bikini incision (BI) used in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA THA) theoretically improves scar aesthetics by utilizing the inguinal crease; however, current literature suggests its transverse orientation increases the risk of injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN). This study examines (1) patient and surgeon satisfaction with scar appearance and (2) differences in post-operative LFCN sensation between the vertical, traditional incision (TI) and the BI. Questions/Purposes: In this pilot study, the following questions were investigated: (1) Do BI patients experience increased scar satisfaction compared to TI patients? (2) Does the surgeon report greater satisfaction with BI scars compared to TI scars? (3) Do BI patients have a reduced incidence of LFCN sensory disturbance compared to TI patients?. Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients (32 TI and 23 BI), at least 6 months post-DAA THA, were recruited from a high-volume, fellowship-trained reconstruction surgeon. 91% of the BI group was female, compared to 50% of the TI group. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) allowed patients to describe scar appearance and complications (eg, pain and itchiness) and enabled the surgeon to assess vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area. Monofilament testing at superomedial, superolateral, inferomedial, and inferolateral quadrants of the anterior thigh assessed LFCN hypoesthesia. Results: POSAS analysis demonstrated that (1) BI patients were significantly more satisfied with scar appearance than TI patients (p < 0.05), and (2) the surgeon was significantly more satisfied with BI scars than TI scars (p < 0.05). (3) Monofilament testing showed significantly more LFCN impairment in the inferomedial quadrant of the TI group (p < 0.0125). Conclusion: This study demonstrates improved patient and surgeon satisfaction with the BI. Contrary to current beliefs, the BI better preserves LFCN innervation relative to the TI.
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.