The Direct Superior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolution of the surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has led to the development of the minimally invasive direct superior approach (DSA). It is hypothesized that the DSA reduces postoperative pain and hospital length of stay (LOS). We aimed to provide an overview of current evidence on clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes with respect to risk of revision, complications, pain scores, physical function, operative time, LOS, blood loss, radiological outcomes, and learning curve. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar, reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension guidelines, was conducted to identify studies evaluating clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of the DSA. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The review protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included, generally of moderate quality. Qualitative synthesis evidenced accurate implant positioning, short LOS, and a short learning curve. Conflicting findings were reported for postoperative complications compared with conventional approaches. Better functional outcomes were seen in the early postoperative period than the posterolateral approach (PLA). Outcomes such as blood loss and operative time exhibited conflicting results and considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if the DSA provides short-term advantages over conventional approaches such as PLA. There is limited evidence on long-term outcomes post-THA using the DSA. Further studies and ongoing registry monitoring is crucial for continuous evaluation of its long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".