Direct anterior approach vs. SuperPATH vs. conventional approaches in total hip replacement: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Two minimally invasive approaches showed some advantages in outcomes compared to conventional approaches (CAs) - the direct anterior approach (DAA) and the supercapsular percutaneously assisted approach in THA (SuperPATH). To the best of our knowledge, these three approaches have never been ranked in a network meta-analysis (NMA) before. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and NMA of randomized controlled trials comparing short-term outcomes of DAA, SuperPATH and CAs in total hip joint arthroplasty (THA), using CAs as common comparator.
Methods: A systematic literature search up to February 2021 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAA with CAs and SuperPATH with CAs in THA. We measured surgical, functional and radiological outcomes. A NMA, using frequentist methods was performed to assess treatment effects between DAA, SuperPATH and CAs. Information was borrowed from the above-mentioned RCTs, using the CA group as a common comparator.
Results: A total of 24 RCTs involving 2,074 patients met the inclusion criteria, six trials with a level I evidence, 18 trials with level II evidence. SuperPATH reduced operation time (fixed effects model: MD=8.1, 95% CI: 5.7 to 10.4), incision length (fixed effects model: MD=2.7, 95%CI: 2.5 to 2.9; random effects model: MD=4.1, 95%CI: 0.6 to 7.6), intraoperative blood loss (fixed effects model: MD=157, 95%CI: 139.2 to 174.2; random effects model: MD=129, 95%CI: 11.5 to 245.7) and early pain intensity (VAS 1 day postoperatively with a fixed effects model: MD=0.8, 95%CI: 0.4 to 1.2) compared to DAA. The two approaches did not differ in functional outcome and in acetabular cup inclination positioning.
Conclusions: Our overall findings suggest that short-term outcomes of THA through SuperPATH were superior to DAA and CAs and that short-term outcomes of THA through DAA were superior to CAs.
Level of Evidence: II; systematic review with level I studies and level II studies.
(Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)