SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Gait and function after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Hardinge versus posterolateral approaches.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare postoperative gait and functional outcomes between the Hardinge approach (HA) and the posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA).
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for studies directly comparing HA and PLA. Eligible studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, quality assessment, and data extraction.
resultsTwenty-six studies, including 245,620 patients (HA: n = 88,193; PLA: n = 157,427), were included. Compared to the HA group, the PLA group was associated with better gait velocity and abductor muscle strength, while the HA group exhibited a lower hip dislocation rate but higher risks of heterotopic ossification and infection. No significant intergroup differences were found in the Harris Hip Score, stride length, ground reaction force, periprosthetic fracture, or radiographic outcomes.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that PLA offers advantages in gait velocity and abductor power recovery, while HA is associated with a lower dislocation rate. This potential benefit of HA must be balanced against its observed higher risks of heterotopic ossification and surgical site infection. These findings, however, are derived from observational studies with inherent confounding factors, such as variations in implant design and surgical technique. Therefore, the reported outcome differences may not be attributable solely to the surgical approach.
trial registrationRegistration ID, CRD42025634164. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.