POSTERIOR VERSUS ANTERIOR APPROACH TO TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of posterior versus anterior approach to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: This study followed the standard methodology established by the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched for randomized controlled trials comparing posterior an anterior approach to primary THA with at least one quantifiable functional outcome published in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Virtual Health Library databases. RESULTS: The analysis included ten randomized controlled trials conducted with 774 patients. The posterior approach was associated with shorter operative time (mean of 15.98 minutes shorter, 95% CI 11.21 to 20.76, p < 0.00001) while the anterior approach was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (0.31 days or about eight hours shorter, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51, p = 0.002) and greater earlier improvement in functional outcomes up to six months from the procedure (mean Harris Hip Score of 4.06 points greater, 95% CI 2.23 to 5.88, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Whereas the posterior approach to primary THA is associated with a shorter operative time, the anterior approach has the potential to decrease the length of stay and provide greater short-term functional restoration. Level of evidence I, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJETIVO: Realizar uma revisão sistemática e metanálise para comparar os resultados clínicos e cirúrgicos entre a via posterior e via anterior para ATQ. MÉTODOS: Este estudo seguiu as diretrizes Cochrane e PRISMA (Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-Análises). Dois investigadores independentes procuraram estudos randomizados controlados nas plataformas de busca PubMed, Cochrane e Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde. Estudos comparando a via posterior com a via anterior para ATQ primária com pelo menos um escore funcional de resultado clínico foram incluídos. RESULTADOS: Dez estudos com 774 pacientes foram incluídos. A via posterior foi associada a um tempo operatório menor (média de 15.98 minutos menor, IC 95% 11.21 a 20.76, p < 0.00001), enquanto a via anterior foi associada a um tempo de internação hospitalar menor (0.31 dia ou cerca de oito horas a menos, IC 95% 0.12 a 0.51, p = 0.002) e melhora superior dos resultados funcionais em até seis meses após a cirurgia (Harris Hip Score médio de 4.06 pontos maior, IC 95% 2.23 a 5.88, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSÃO: A via posterior foi associada a um tempo operatório menor, enquanto a via anterior tem o potencial de diminuir o tempo de hospitalização e fornecer melhor recuperação funcional no curto prazo. Nível de Evidência I, Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise.

Posterior versus anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials / Via posterior versus via anterior para artroplastia total do quadril: revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados

ABSTRACT Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of posterior versus anterior approach to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: This study followed the standard methodology established by the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched for randomized controlled trials comparing posterior an anterior approach to primary THA with at least one quantifiable functional outcome published in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Virtual Health Library databases. Results: The analysis included ten randomized controlled trials conducted with 774 patients. The posterior approach was associated with shorter operative time (mean of 15.98 minutes shorter, 95% CI 11.21 to 20.76, p < 0.00001) while the anterior approach was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (0.31 days or about eight hours shorter, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51, p = 0.002) and greater earlier improvement in functional outcomes up to six months from the procedure (mean Harris Hip Score of 4.06 points greater, 95% CI 2.23 to 5.88, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Whereas the posterior approach to primary THA is associated with a shorter operative time, the anterior approach has the potential to decrease the length of stay and provide greater short-term functional restoration. Level of evidence I, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

RESUMO Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão sistemática e metanálise para comparar os resultados clínicos e cirúrgicos entre a via posterior e via anterior para ATQ. Métodos: Este estudo seguiu as diretrizes Cochrane e PRISMA (Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-Análises). Dois investigadores independentes procuraram estudos randomizados controlados nas plataformas de busca PubMed, Cochrane e Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde. Estudos comparando a via posterior com a via anterior para ATQ primária com pelo menos um escore funcional de resultado clínico foram incluídos. Resultados: Dez estudos com 774 pacientes foram incluídos. A via posterior foi associada a um tempo operatório menor (média de 15.98 minutos menor, IC 95% 11.21 a 20.76, p < 0.00001), enquanto a via anterior foi associada a um tempo de internação hospitalar menor (0.31 dia ou cerca de oito horas a menos, IC 95% 0.12 a 0.51, p = 0.002) e melhora superior dos resultados funcionais em até seis meses após a cirurgia (Harris Hip Score médio de 4.06 pontos maior, IC 95% 2.23 a 5.88, p < 0.0001). Conclusão: A via posterior foi associada a um tempo operatório menor, enquanto a via anterior tem o potencial de diminuir o tempo de hospitalização e fornecer melhor recuperação funcional no curto prazo. Nível de Evidência I, Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise.

Experimental Execution of the Simulated Pivot-Shift Test: A Systematic Review of Techniques.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to identify and summarize the various techniques that have been used to simulate the pivot-shift test in vitro. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened for studies involving the simulated pivot-shift test in human cadaveric knees published between 1946 and May 2014. Study parameters including sample size, study location, simulated pivot-shift technique, loads applied, knee flexion angles at which simulated pivot shift was tested, and kinematic evaluation tools were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies reporting simulated pivot-shift testing on 627 cadaveric knees fulfilled the criteria. Reviewer inter-rater agreement for study selection showed a κ score of 0.960 (full-text review). Twenty-seven studies described the use of internal rotation torque, with a mean of 5.3 Nm (range, 1 to 18 Nm). Forty-seven studies described the use of valgus torque, with a mean of 8.8 Nm (range, 1 to 25 Nm). Four studies described the use of iliotibial tract tension, ranging from 10 to 88 N. Regarding static simulated pivot-shift test techniques, 100% of the studies performed testing at 30° of knee flexion, and the most tested range of motion in the continuous tests was 0° to 90°. Anterior tibial translation was the most analyzed parameter during the simulated pivot-shift test, being used in 45 studies. In 22% of the studies, a robotic system was used to simulate the pivot-shift test. Robotic systems were shown to have better control of the loading system and higher tracking system accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a reference for investigators who desire to apply simulated pivot shift in their in vitro studies. It is recommended to simulate the pivot-shift test using a 10-Nm valgus torque and 5-Nm internal rotation torque. Knee flexion of 30° is mandatory for testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of basic science studies.