Meta-analysis on clinical outcomes of the SuperPATH approach versus traditional approach in hip arthroplasty / 中国组织工程研究

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Some clinical randomized controlled trials are trying to answer the clinical effects of SuperPATH approach and traditional approach in hip replacement, but the conclusions of present studies are different. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between SuperPATH approach and traditional approach in hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The randomized controlled trials about SuperPATH approach and traditional approach in hip arthroplasty published before July 2017 were searched in the PubMed, EMbase, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and CNKI. Some published references were hand-searched. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures, extracted the data and evaluated methodological quality. Meta-analysis was conducted by Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Eight randomized controlled trials (involving 483 cases) were involved in this analysis. The SuperPATH approach group consisted of 228 cases; the traditional approach group consisted of 255 cases. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that compared with traditional approach group, operation time was longer; incision was shorter; hip joint score was higher at postoperatively 3 months; Visual Analogue Scale scores were lower at postoperatively 1, 3 and 7 days; intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were less in the SuperPATH approach group. No significant difference was found in postoperative complications, postoperative anteversion angle, and postoperative abduction angle, and hip score at postoperatively 1 and 6 months. These findings suggested that the total short-term effects in SuperPATH approach was better than that of traditional approach in hip arthroplasty. Long-term clinical outcomes require further investigation.