Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 1 Dislocation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 1 Dislocation.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 2 Trendelenburg gait.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 2 Trendelenburg gait.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 3 Nerve palsy or injury.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 3 Nerve palsy or injury.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 4 Pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 4 Pain.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 5 Trendelenburg score [0‐2].
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 5 Trendelenburg score [0‐2].

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 6 Limp score [0‐4].
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 6 Limp score [0‐4].

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 7 Abductor power score [0‐5].
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 7 Abductor power score [0‐5].

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 8 Sciatic nerve palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 8 Sciatic nerve palsy.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 9 Sup. gluteal nerve palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 9 Sup. gluteal nerve palsy.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 10 Obturator nerve palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 10 Obturator nerve palsy.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 11 Femoral nerve palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 11 Femoral nerve palsy.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 12 Harris hip score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 12 Harris hip score.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 14 Range of motion.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 14 Range of motion.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 15 Limb‐length discrepancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 15 Limb‐length discrepancy.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 16 Stem loosening.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 16 Stem loosening.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 17 Cup loosening.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 17 Cup loosening.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 18 Reoperation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 18 Reoperation.

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 20 Heterotopic ossification [Brooker 1‐4].
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA, Outcome 20 Heterotopic ossification [Brooker 1‐4].

Comparison 1. Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Dislocation Show forest plot

2

149

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.04, 3.22]

2 Trendelenburg gait Show forest plot

3

166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.21, 1.27]

3 Nerve palsy or injury Show forest plot

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.03, 0.83]

4 Pain Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.17, 2.03]

4.1 Trochanteric pain (>3/10)

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.17, 2.03]

5 Trendelenburg score [0‐2] Show forest plot

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.25, 0.31]

6 Limp score [0‐4] Show forest plot

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.61, 0.33]

7 Abductor power score [0‐5] Show forest plot

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.24, 0.64]

8 Sciatic nerve palsy Show forest plot

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.01, 3.59]

9 Sup. gluteal nerve palsy Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.03, 2.19]

10 Obturator nerve palsy Show forest plot

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.01, 3.59]

11 Femoral nerve palsy Show forest plot

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.01, 7.07]

12 Harris hip score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Pre‐operative

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Postoperative

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.3 Change post‐preop at folllow‐up

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 WOMAC score

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Range of motion Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Internal rotation

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

16.0 [8.64, 23.36]

15 Limb‐length discrepancy Show forest plot

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.20, 1.84]

15.1 LLD > 1cm

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.20, 1.84]

16 Stem loosening Show forest plot

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Cup loosening Show forest plot

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Reoperation Show forest plot

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Periprosthetic fracture

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Heterotopic ossification [Brooker 1‐4] Show forest plot

1

245

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.30, 1.09]

20.1 Brooker I

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.16, 1.55]

20.2 Brooker II

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.15, 15.46]

20.3 Brooker III

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.01, 5.91]

20.4 Brooker IV

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.5 Total

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.23, 1.38]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Posterior vs Direct Lateral approach for THA