ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the SuperPath Versus Hardinge Approach in Total Hip Replacement for Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are various surgical approaches for total hip replacement (THR), such as the Direct Lateral (Hardinge), anterior, and supra-acetabular (SuperPath) approach. The aim of this study was to compare the post-operative clinical, functional and quality of life outcomes of the SuperPath and Direct Lateral approach in hip osteoarthritis patients undergoing THR.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed of a single-surgeon consecutive cohort of THR's. Data was obtained from the St. Vincent's Melbourne Arthroplasty Outcomes (SMART) Registry, for all THR's between 01-01-2012 and 31-12-2019. Primary outcomes were the patient-reported WOMAC and VR12, measured at pre-op, 12- and 24-month timepoints. Groups were compared using a mixed-model analysis adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, surgery duration, complications, readmissions, and reoperations.
results384 patients were analysed (259 Direct Lateral; 125 SuperPath). Total WOMAC Scores were significantly better for the SuperPath group (mean diff: 7.1, 95% CI 0.76-13.54, p = 0.02). VR12 Total Scores were significantly higher for SuperPath patients (mean diff: 3.9, 95% CI 0.53-7.35, p = 0.02). For secondary outcomes, the SuperPath approach had a shorter operation time than the Direct Lateral approach (81.9 min vs. 85.8 min, mean difference 3.8, 95% CI: 0.14-7.50, p = 0.04).
conclusionAlthough the SuperPath approach led to slightly better pain, function and quality of life outcomes than the Direct Lateral approach, the difference was below the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) although statistically significant. There were no differences in other clinical outcomes except for shorter surgery duration, presumably since there were more cemented procedures in the Direct Lateral group.
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.