Comparison of clinical outcomes of supercapsular percutaneously-assisted approach total hip arthroplasty versus conventional posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Objective This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the postoperative clinical outcomes between the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH, SP) and conventional posterior/posterolateral approach (PA) for total hip arthroplasty in patients who have failed conservative treatment for hip-related disorders. Methods PRISMAP guidelines were followed in this systematic review. CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference list grey literature were searched for studies according to the search strategy. Endnote (version 20) was used to screen the searched studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criterias and extract the data from the eligible studied. RR and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables and MD and 95% CI were used for continuous variables. All analyses and heterogeneity of outcomes were analysed by Review Manage (version 5.4). Publication bias of included studies was analysed by Stata (version 16.0). Results Thirty-six randomized control studies were included. Compared to PA group, SP group had a shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, a shorter length of hospital stay and do activities earlier. Hip function (HHS) was significantly improved within three months postoperatively. Pain of hip (VAS) was significantly reduced within one month postoperatively. The state of daily living (BI) was significantly improved within three months. Patients' overall health status (SF-36) improved significantly postoperatively. There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two approaches. PA had a shorter operative time and a higher accuracy of prosthesis placement. Conclusion The advantages of SuperPATH include accelerated functional recovery and less trauma associated with surgery. However, it required a longer operative time and implantation of the prosthesis was less accurate than that of PA.