Evaluating the direct superior approach compared to the traditional posterior approach for hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The direct superior approach (DSA) has recently emerged as a minimally invasive substitute for the posterior approach (PA) in hip arthroplasty (HA), with the potential to provide better perioperative and functional outcomes. Nevertheless, the current evidence comparing the two approaches is limited and conflicting. Hence, we carried out this study to assess the DSA compared to PA in patients undergoing HA. Methods: A comprehensive search, encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted from inception until April 2025. Studies that compare DSA to PA for patients undergoing HA were included. The primary outcome was the duration of hospital stay, while the secondary outcomes were incision length, functional outcomes, discharge, surgery revision rates, and complications. Mean difference (MD) with a 95 % confidence interval (C.I.) was employed for pooling the continuous variables, while the categorical data were analysed as risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % CI. Results: Twelve studies, incorporating 147,098 patients, constituted our review. Our pooled estimate favored the DSA in decreasing the duration of hospital stay (MD = -0.95, 95 % CI [-1.32 to -0.57], p = 0.001), and shortening the incision length (MD = -5.16, 95 % CI [-6.48 to -3.85], p = 0.001) compared to the PA. Furthermore, DSA showed notably lower VAS pain scores (MD = -0.39, 95 % CI [-0.69 to -0.09], p = 0.01) and a reduced risk of discharge to rehabilitation (RR = 0.55, 95 % CI [0.40 to 0.75], p = 0.001). However, our pooled analysis did not detect significant differences between the two approaches regarding functional scores, such as HOOS subscales, HHS, OHS, WOMAC, revision rate, and complications. Conclusion: DSA was associated with a lower hospital stay, shorter incision length, and lower VAS pain scores than the PA. Additionally, no substantial differences were detected regarding functional parameters or complications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".