ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Analysis of Hip Abductor Strength Following Anterolateral Versus Posterior Approaches in Total Hip Replacement: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Total hip replacement (THR) is a highly successful procedure for end-stage hip disorders; however, persistent postoperative functional limitations continue to be reported, particularly due to weakness of the hip abductor musculature, which plays a critical role in pelvic stability and gait mechanics. Surgical approach may influence abductor integrity and postoperative recovery. This study prospectively evaluated hip abductor muscle strength recovery following THR and compared outcomes between the anterolateral and posterior approaches. Methodology A prospective, observational study was conducted among 50 THR patients at a tertiary care center over 12 months. Patients were allocated to anterolateral (n = 25) or posterior (n = 25) approaches based on surgeon preference. Baseline demographic, clinical, and radiological profiles were comparable between groups. Hip abductor strength was assessed using Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) at 48 hours, 6 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively. A standardized rehabilitation protocol was implemented for all patients starting 48 hours after surgery. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Abductor strength improved significantly from 48 hours to 3 months in the entire cohort (p = 0.001). At all follow-up intervals, the posterior approach demonstrated significantly higher mean abductor strength than the anterolateral approach (48 hours: 2.60 ± 0.70 vs. 2.04 ± 0.35; 6 weeks: 3.52 ± 0.58 vs. 2.72 ± 0.54; 3 months: 4.48 ± 0.58 vs. 3.52 ± 0.51; p = 0.001 for all). Baseline clinical examination parameters showed no statistically significant differences between groups, suggesting comparability at entry. These findings indicate that early postoperative functional abductor recovery is more favorable with the posterior approach. Conclusions The posterior surgical approach was associated with superior early hip abductor muscle strength recovery when compared to the anterolateral approach following THR. While these results have important implications for functional rehabilitation and approach selection, interpretation should be made cautiously due to non-randomized allocation and modest sample size. Future studies with larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and objective quantitative strength assessment (e.g., dynamometer measurement) are warranted to validate these findings and guide evidence-informed approach selection in THR.
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.