Disadvantage during Perioperative Period of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Direct Anterior Approach: a Network Meta-Analysis.
Anterolateral
Direct Anterior
Gait Analysis
Harding
Total Hip Arthroplasty
Journal
Journal of Korean medical science
ISSN: 1598-6357
Titre abrégé: J Korean Med Sci
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 8703518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 May 2020
11 May 2020
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
accepted:
27
02
2020
entrez:
9
5
2020
pubmed:
10
5
2020
medline:
21
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to analyze complications of complete hip arthroplasty through systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative studies of direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (LA), and posterolateral approach (PA). Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs evaluating clinical outcomes of DAA, LA, and PA for complete hip arthroplasty are valid if they meet the following criteria: 1) Comparison of clinical outcomes between the three methods for main complete hip arthroplasty (total hip arthroplasty, THA); 2) Compared at least one of the following outcomes: blood loss, operating time, and transfusion volume; 3) Sufficient data were available to extract and pool, i.e., mean reported, standard deviation and number of subjects. A network meta-analysis was used to determine the results of treatment across various surgical approaches. Indirect comparisons between the two surgical approaches was made by borrowing details from the standard comparator (i.e., the posterior approach). Eight prospective RCTs were included in the meta-analysis of the network. The operation time of the LA was longer than that of PA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.18; When performing THA with DAA, we should pay attention to increased operation time and blood loss.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to analyze complications of complete hip arthroplasty through systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative studies of direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (LA), and posterolateral approach (PA).
METHODS
METHODS
Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs evaluating clinical outcomes of DAA, LA, and PA for complete hip arthroplasty are valid if they meet the following criteria: 1) Comparison of clinical outcomes between the three methods for main complete hip arthroplasty (total hip arthroplasty, THA); 2) Compared at least one of the following outcomes: blood loss, operating time, and transfusion volume; 3) Sufficient data were available to extract and pool, i.e., mean reported, standard deviation and number of subjects. A network meta-analysis was used to determine the results of treatment across various surgical approaches. Indirect comparisons between the two surgical approaches was made by borrowing details from the standard comparator (i.e., the posterior approach).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight prospective RCTs were included in the meta-analysis of the network. The operation time of the LA was longer than that of PA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.18;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
When performing THA with DAA, we should pay attention to increased operation time and blood loss.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32383362
pii: 35.e111
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e111
pmc: PMC7211512
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e111Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Sep;12(3):123-9
pubmed: 21748384
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:63-7
pubmed: 16330985
Am Orthopt J. 2010;60:6-8
pubmed: 21061877
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec;453:293-8
pubmed: 17006366
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Apr;87(4):701-10
pubmed: 15805196
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jun;99-B(6):732-740
pubmed: 28566391
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Dec;32(12):3652-3658.e1
pubmed: 28780222
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Aug 3;93(15):1392-8
pubmed: 21915544
World J Orthop. 2016 Feb 18;7(2):94-101
pubmed: 26925380
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Nov;32(11):3421-3428
pubmed: 28662957
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):632-8
pubmed: 25337974
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
J Orthop Traumatol. 2009 Mar;10(1):47-54
pubmed: 19384637
Acta Orthop. 2012 Aug;83(4):342-6
pubmed: 22880711
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct;28(9):1634-8
pubmed: 23523485
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Feb 8;20(1):63
pubmed: 30736783
Int Orthop. 2009 Dec;33(6):1473-81
pubmed: 19277652
Acta Orthop. 2017 Jun;88(3):239-247
pubmed: 28464754
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Dec;24(10):812-8
pubmed: 19699566
Acta Orthop. 2010 Dec;81(6):696-702
pubmed: 21110702
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88(9):2100-13
pubmed: 16951129
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Mar;27(3):378-85
pubmed: 21802253
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Jul;40(3):329-42
pubmed: 19576400
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Jan;132(1):101-4
pubmed: 21947286
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Dec;94(50):e2126
pubmed: 26683920
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):200-8
pubmed: 20352383
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007 Aug;19(3):310-26
pubmed: 17728988
Acta Orthop. 2014 Sep;85(5):463-9
pubmed: 24954494
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jul;93(7):886-9
pubmed: 21705558
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2009 Oct 10;1(2):e27
pubmed: 21808689
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Oct;24(7):999-1005
pubmed: 19493651
Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:189-93
pubmed: 16958453