SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Wound complications and clinical efficacy of the direct anterior approach versus the posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe direct anterior approach (DAA) and the posterolateral approach (PLA) are commonly used surgical techniques in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, whether DAA is associated with different wound complication rates compared with PLA remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare wound complications and clinical outcomes between DAA and PLA in THA based on randomized controlled trials.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across six major electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chongqing VIP Information (CQVIP). The search strategy encompassed studies indexed from database inception to 31 December 2025. The primary outcomes were wound complications, including incisional infection, hematoma, and delayed wound healing. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied during study screening. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The PLA group was used as the control group. Data were extracted from the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A pooled statistical analysis was performed to estimate the rate of wound complications and to compare the clinical effects of DAA and PLA. The meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 15.
resultsA total of 18 eligible RCTs, comprising 1,485 patients, were included. Compared with PLA, DAA was associated with decreased rates of incisional infection (RR = 0.48, P = 0.03, I
conclusionCompared with the PLA, the DAA is associated with improved perioperative outcomes following THA. Specifically, the DAA demonstrates a lower incidence of incision infection, fewer overall wound complications, shorter incision length, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. Early postoperative functional outcomes and pain, assessed by HHS and VAS, are also superior with the DAA. However, owing to heterogeneity and limited robustness of certain outcomes, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these results.
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.