SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Early clinical efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA) significantly influences early recovery and complication rates. However, comprehensive evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of multiple contemporary approaches remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science (inception to July 2025). We included 85 RCTs (6,575 patients) comparing 13 surgical approaches. Frequentist framework NMA was performed, with effects reported as mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Treatment rankings were assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.
resultsThe analysis of 85 RCTs (6,575 patients) demonstrated distinct performance profiles among the 13 surgical approaches. For functional recovery, the ranking probabilities suggested that minimally invasive anterolateral approach (MIS-ALA) was most likely to achieve the best early postoperative HHS (SUCRA = 88.7%), while modified direct anterior approach (DAA-Modified) ranked highest for medium-to-long-term HHS (SUCRA = 97.8%). regarding surgical efficiency, the minimally invasive posterolateral approach (MIS-PLA) was associated with the highest probability of having the shortest operative time (SUCRA = 98.4%), whereas MIS-ALA had the highest SUCRA value for blood loss control (SUCRA = 90.9%). For surgical trauma, MIS-PLA had the highest SUCRA value indicating the potential for the smallest postoperative CK increase (SUCRA = 82.4%), while anterior approaches (DAA-Modified, bikini direct anterior approach (DAA-Bikini), direct anterior approach (DAA)) ranked highest for suppressing CRP elevation (SUCRAs: 88.2%, 83.4%, and 80.8%). DAA had the highest SUCRA value for walking speed recovery (SUCRA = 91.8%), and supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPath) had the highest SUCRA value for the physical component summary score (SUCRA = 95.4%). Safety analysis revealed direct lateral approach (DLA) had the highest SUCRA value for the lowest complication risk (SUCRA = 92.9%), while DAA-Bikini had the highest adverse event incidence.
conclusionTHA surgical approaches present distinct efficacy-safety profiles with varying probabilities of advantage. Clinical selection should be individualized based on patient characteristics and surgical expertise, as no single approach is universally superior across all outcomes.
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.