Comparison of complications in single-incision minimally invasive THA and conventional THA

Reverse Fragility Index: Comparing Revision Rates Between Direct Anterior and Other Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing adoption of the direct anterior (DA) approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA), uncertainty persists regarding its outcomes beyond the 1-year mark in comparison to other approaches. We used the reverse fragility index (RFI) to evaluate the robustness of reported findings in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing implant revision rates between DA and other approaches in THA, defined as all those different from DA. Our primary outcome was the RFI, which gauges the number of events needed for a nonsignificant result to become significant, in the revision rate between DA and other approaches. We also calculated the reverse fragility quotient by dividing the RFI by each study's sample size. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were displayed.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs with a total of 971 patients were included. The median RFI was 5 (IQR, 4 to 5), indicating the study's results would be statistically significant if the outcomes of 5 patients in 1 treatment arm were reversed. The median reverse fragility quotient was 0.049 (IQR, 0.04 to 0.057), indicating that a change of outcome in 4.9% of patients would render the revision rate significant. The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 4 (IQR, 0 to 7). Of the 10 RCTs, 6 had more patients lost to follow-up than their respective RFI values.

CONCLUSIONS

Notable fragility was evidenced in most studies comparing DA to other approaches for THA. Surgeons should not solely rely on the P value to determine clinical significance and instead use multiple metrics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

It remains uncertain if the new SuperPATH approach benefits patients in artificial hip joint replacement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the short-term outcome of SuperPATH approach and conventional approaches in hip joint replacement.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to April 2020 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing SuperPATH with conventional approaches in hip joint replacement. We measured surgical, functional, and radiological outcomes. Mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled using random effects models and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs involving 726 patients met the inclusion criteria, one trial with a level I evidence, 11 trials with level II evidence. The overall meta-analysis showed that SuperPATH approach reduced incision length (MD = − 4.84, 95% CI − 7.04 to − 2.64, p < 0.01), pain VAS 7 day postoperatively (MD = − 1.39, 95% CI − 2.57 to − 0.21, p = 0.03), and HHS 7 day postoperatively (MD = 10.24, 95% CI 0.27 to 20.21, p = 0.05). The two approaches did not differ in acetabular cup positioning angles, intra- and postoperative blood loss, hospitalization period, and postoperative complications. Hip replacement via SuperPATH approach had a longer operation time than hip replacement via conventional approaches.

Conclusions

SuperPATH approach showed better results in decreasing incision length and early pain intensity as well as improvement of short-term functional outcome. Long-term outcomes of SuperPATH approach need to be investigated.

Functional recovery after muscle sparing total hip arthroplasty in comparison to classic lateral approach - A three years follow-up study

BACKGROUND

The muscle sparing total hip arthroplasty had generated a distinguishable interest, in both the patients and the surgeons, but its benefits are still often questioned. The main idea of this study was to compare the functional clinical outcome of the patients operated by the anterolateral approach with a muscle-sparing technique (modified Watson-Jones approach), and the patients operated by modified direct lateral approach without the muscle-sparing technique (Bauer/Hardinge approach).

METHODS

The patients (N = 130) were divided into two groups: 68 in a standard method group (STAND) and 62 patients in a muscle sparing surgery group (MSS). The hip flexibility, mobility, the strength of the hip abduction, the pain scale, Harris hip scores, the duration of the hospital stay and the overall satisfaction were measured seven days, three months, one year and three years (in 80 patients) after the surgery. There were no differences in any of the parameters between the groups prior to the procedure.

RESULTS

The statistically significant differences in first three follow-ups (up to one year) were determined between the groups in passive and active hip flexion ability but the hip abduction strength, which is a crucial parameter for functional recovery, and 50 m walk test remained better in MSS group even after three years. Patients, who underwent MSS suffered also less pain, stayed in hospital shorter and were more satisfied with the operation outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The functional recovery in patients treated with muscle sparing method was faster than in patients operated with conventional lateral approach. Based on the results, we could recommend anterolateral muscle sparing approach for a total hip replacement for its faster and fuller functional recovery.

Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) involves the replacement of a damaged hip joint with an artificial hip prosthesis. Resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) involves replacement of the joint surface of the femoral head with a metal surface covering.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of different types of THR and RS for the treatment of pain and disability in people with end-stage arthritis of the hip, in particular to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) different types of primary THR and RS for people in whom both procedures are suitable and (2) different types of primary THR for people who are not suitable for hip RS.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio Database were searched in December 2012, with searches limited to publications from 2008 and sample sizes of ≥ 100 participants. Reference lists and websites of manufacturers and professional organisations were also screened.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of THR and RS for people with end-stage arthritis of the hip. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were data extracted and risk of bias and methodological quality were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. A Markov multistate model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by sex and controlled for age were carried out to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 2469 records were screened of which 37 were included, representing 16 RCTs and eight systematic reviews. The mean post-THR Harris Hip Score measured at different follow-up times (from 6 months to 10 years) did not differ between THR groups, including between cross-linked polyethylene and traditional polyethylene cup liners (pooled mean difference 2.29, 95% confidence interval -0.88 to 5.45). Five systematic reviews reported evidence on different types of THR (cemented vs. cementless cup fixation and implant articulation materials) but these reviews were inconclusive. Eleven cost-effectiveness studies were included; four provided relevant cost and utility data for the model. Thirty registry studies were included, with no studies reporting better implant survival for RS than for all types of THR. For all analyses, mean costs for RS were higher than those for THR and mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were lower. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RS was dominated by THR, that is, THR was cheaper and more effective than RS (for a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost of RS was £11,284 and the incremental QALYs were -0.0879). For all age and sex groups RS remained clearly dominated by THR. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that, for all patients, THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. There were age and sex differences in the populations with different types of THR and variations in revision rates (from 1.6% to 3.5% at 9 years). For the base-case analysis, for all age and sex groups and a lifetime horizon, mean costs for category E (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) were slightly lower and mean QALYs for category E were slightly higher than those for all other THR categories in both deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Hence, category E dominated the other four categories. Sensitivity analysis using an age- and sex-adjusted log-normal model demonstrated that, over a lifetime horizon and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, categories A and E were equally likely (50%) to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

A large proportion of the included studies were inconclusive because of poor reporting, missing data, inconsistent results and/or great uncertainty in the treatment effect estimates. This warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. The evidence on complications was scarce, which may be because of the absence or rarity of these events or because of under-reporting. The poor reporting meant that it was not possible to explore contextual factors that might have influenced study results and also reduced the applicability of the findings to routine clinical practice in the UK. The scope of the review was limited to evidence published in English in 2008 or later, which could be interpreted as a weakness; however, systematic reviews would provide summary evidence for studies published before 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with THR, revision rates for RS were higher, mean costs for RS were higher and mean QALYs gained were lower; RS was dominated by THR. Similar results were obtained in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses and for all age and sex groups THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. Revision rates for all types of THR were low. Category A THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-metal articulation) was more cost-effective for older age groups. However, across all age-sex groups combined, the mean cost for category E THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) was slightly lower and the mean QALYs gained were slightly higher. Category E therefore dominated the other four categories. Certain types of THR appeared to confer some benefit, including larger femoral head sizes, use of a cemented cup, use of a cross-linked polyethylene cup liner and a ceramic-on-ceramic as opposed to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Further RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003924.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Mini-incision versus standard incision total hip arthroplasty regarding surgical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

It remains controversial whether mini-incision (MI) benefits patients in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of MI on surgical and functional outcomes in THA patients.

Methods

A systematic electronic literature search (up to May 2013) was conducted to identify RCTs comparing MI with standard incision (SI) THA. The primary outcome measures were surgical and functional outcomes. According to the surgical approach taken, MI THA patients were divided into four subgroups for sub-group meta-analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk differences (RDs) with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a fixed-effect or random-effect model according to the heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 14 RCTs involving THA 1,174 patients met the inclusion criteria. The trials were medium risk of bias. The overall meta-analysis showed MI THA reduced total blood loss (95% CI, -201.83 to -21.18; p=.02) and length of hospital stay ( 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.08; p=.01) with significant heterogeneity. However, subgroup meta-analysis revealed posterior MI THA had perioperative advantages of reduced surgical duration ( 95% CI, -8.45 to -2.67; P<.001), less blood loss ( 95% CI, -107.20 to -1.73; P=.04) and shorter hospital stay ( 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.06; p=.002) with low heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between MI and SI THA groups in term of pain medication dose, functional outcome (HHS), radiological outcome or complications (P>.05, respectively).

Conclusions

Although no definite overall conclusion can be arrived at on whether MI THA is superior to SI THA, posterior MI THA clearly result in a significant decrease in surgical duration, blood loss and hospital stay. It seems to be a safe minimally invasive surgical procedure without increasing the risk of component malposition or complications.

Is limited incision better than standard total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The literature comparing limited incision and standard incision THAs is confusing regarding whether limited incision THA improves short-term recovery without compromising long-term durability and survival. Further, previously published meta-analyses cannot conclude that limited incision THA is better. With new data, we seek to discover if the answers now exist.

PURPOSE

We used meta-analysis to compare surgical and hospitalization data, clinical outcomes, and complication rates, and thus (1) confirm whether limited incision THA is at least comparable to standard incision THA; and (2) determine whether limited incision THA is an improvement over standard incision THA.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched using the terms "minimally", "invasive", and "total hip". Inclusion was limited to studies directly comparing limited incision with standard incision THA and reporting effect sizes.

RESULTS

We identified 418 articles. Of these 11 provided background information and 30 provided data (3548 THAs) for the systematic review. Limited incision THA was better than standard incision THA in four measures: length of hospitalization (6 versus 7 days), VAS pain at discharge (2 versus 4), blood loss (421 mL versus 494 mL), and the Harris hip score at 3 months postoperation (90 versus 84). There were no outcomes for which standard incision was better. There was no major difference in the rate of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term recovery favors limited incision over standard incision THA. The lack of consistent reporting for surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications continues to create difficulties when comparing limited and standard incision THAs.