Supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip arthroplasty versus conventional posterior approach: Comparison of early functional results

SuperPATH-Current Status of Evidence and Further Investigations: A Scoping Review and Quality Assessment

BACKGROUND

SuperPATH is a novel minimally invasive technique for hip replacement that is gaining increasing attention. The aim of this review was to determine the nature, extent, and quality of current research evidence on SuperPATH and to identify areas for further investigations.

METHODS

A bibliometric search was conducted in PubMed up to 1 August 2023 using the search term "SuperPATH". Data extraction and quality assessment were performed for relevant articles.

RESULTS

The bibliometric search yielded 51 articles on SuperPATH, 9 of which were meta-analyses, 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 were prospective non-RCTs, 12 were retrospective comparative studies, 11 were case series, and 4 were other article types. Most articles were published between 2015 and 2023, with a steady increase in publications per year. The articles originated from 13 countries, of which China was the most productive (35%). The quality assessment of the meta-analyses showed that 22.2% were of moderate quality, 66.7% were of low quality, and 11.1% were of critically low quality. The quality assessment of the RCTs showed that 36.4% had a low risk of bias (RoB), 27.2% revealed some concerns, and 36.4% had a high RoB. All studies were evaluated for content and taken into account in the formulation of recommendations and conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The SuperPATH evidence varies from low to high quality. There is a steady increase in SuperPATH publications in the English-language literature and an uneven distribution of the article origins, with most articles coming from China. Consistent terminology should be used in the future, referring to the surgical approach as the direct superior approach (DSA) and to the surgical technique as SuperPATH. This review provides further concrete suggestions for future investigations and recommendations to improve study quality.

The Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted Total Hip Approach Does Not Provide Any Clinical Advantage Over the Conventional Posterior Approach for THA in a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) approach was designed to be a less-invasive surgical approach to THA. This approach may have advantages, including less pain, more rapid mobilization, and shorter hospital length of stay. However, few published studies have compared the SuperPATH technique to existing standard approaches in a randomized, controlled manner.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study, we asked: (1) Do patients with SuperPATH demonstrate improved early function, using the timed up and go (TUG) and timed stair climbing (TSC) tests as instruments for assessment during the first 100 days postoperatively? (2) Are patient-reported outcomes, in the form of Oxford Hip Scores, better for the SuperPATH group during the first 3 months postoperatively? (3) Are opioid consumption and pain score in the first month postoperatively different between patients undergoing SuperPATH and patients undergoing a standard posterior approach? (4) Are patients with SuperPATH able to discontinue using mobility aids and return to work more quickly?

METHODS

Between February 2017 and May 2019, 46% (46 of 101) of patients were recruited among 101 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Those 46 patients were randomized into two groups on the day of surgery; 54% (25 of 46) were assigned to the study group (SuperPATH approach) and 46% (21 of 46) were assigned to the control group (posterior approach). The SuperPATH technique uses the plane between the gluteus medius and the external rotators while preserving the piriformis and the superior aspect of the capsule. A percutaneous accessory portal is required for acetabular reaming and cup insertion. The posterior approach involves releasing short rotators and partially releasing the quadratus femoris while retaining the gluteus maximus's insertion site. The two groups did not differ in BMI, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, surgical side, or diagnosis. The length of stay, component position, and blood loss were similar between the groups, but the operative time was longer in the SuperPATH group than in the group with the posterior approach. One patient from the control group was lost to follow-up and was excluded. Three patients in the study group had complications. The TUG and TSC tests are timed tasks for the patient. In the TUG test, patients stand from sitting, walk 3 meters and turn, walk back, and sit down. The TSC test measures the time taken to ascend and descend 10 steps. Patients were followed for 24 months for any complications.

RESULTS

The TUG time at 100 days was 8.9 ± 2.6 seconds in the SuperPATH group and 8.7 ± 2.2 seconds in the posterior group (mean difference -0.2 seconds [95% CI -1.8 to 1.4]; p = 0.98); results were similar at other timepoints. The TSC time at 100 days was 11.6 ± 4.7 seconds in the SuperPATH group and 10.8 ± 3.6 seconds in the posterior group (mean difference -0.7 seconds [95% CI -3.5 to 2.1]; p = 0.88), and there were no differences between the two groups at all timepoints. The Oxford Hip Score showed no difference at any point postoperatively. At 6 weeks, it was 36 ± 5.9 points in the SuperPATH group and 38 ± 8.6 in the posterior group (mean difference 1.7 points [95% CI -2.7 to 6.1]; p = 0.51). At 3 months, it was 42± 6.7 points in the SuperPATH group and 41 ± 10.2 points in the posterior group (mean difference 0.7 points [95% CI -6.2 to 4.9]; p = 0.34). Patients' pain scores did not show any differences at all tested timepoints (mean difference 1 [95% CI -0.2 to 2.2]; p = 0.102). Total opioid consumption in the posterior group was higher in the first 2 weeks than that in the SuperPATH group (mean difference 6 [95% CI 2.3 to 9.9]; p = 0.001), but there was no difference in either group by week 4 (mean difference 0.4 [95% CI -0.5 to 1.4]; p = 0.36). There was no difference in return to work between the SuperPATH group and the posterior approach group (mean difference 6 days [95% CI -29 to 41]; p = 0.74). Discontinuation of mobility aids was similar between the two groups (mean difference 0.9 days [95% CI -25 to 27]; p = 0.94).

CONCLUSION

The SuperPATH approach had no clinical advantages over the posterior approach, resulted in more complications, and only showed a short-term reduction in pain. The results of our small randomized controlled trial can be used to calculate future sample sizes, but our data suggest that any differences favoring the SuperPATH approach are likely to be small and transient. This approach should not be used routinely in clinical practice until an adequately powered trial shows clinically important differences in patient-relevant endpoints. The improved postoperative recovery is likely multifactorial and not dependent on the invasiveness of the approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Comparison of the early clinical efficacy of the SuperPath approach versus the modified Hardinge approach in total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical efficacy and advantages of the SuperPath approach for total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly population.

METHODS

From February 2018 to March 2019, 120 patients were randomly divided into two groups with 60 patients each: the SuperPath group and the conventional group. The results evaluated included the general operation situation, serum markers, blood loss, pain score, hip function and prosthesis location analysis.

RESULTS

There was no demographic difference between the two groups. Compared with the conventional group, the SuperPath group had a shorter operation time (78.4 vs. 93.0 min, p = 0.000), a smaller incision length (5.8 vs. 12.5 cm, p = 0.000), less intraoperative blood loss (121.5 vs. 178.8 ml, p = 0.000), a shorter hospitalization time (8.0 vs. 10.8 days, p = 0.000) and less drainage volume (77.8 vs. 141.2 ml, p = 0.000). The creatine kinase level in the SuperPath group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group, while there was no difference in the C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate level. The visual analog scale score was lower one month postoperatively, and the Harris hip score was higher three months postoperatively in the SuperPath group (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the cup abduction angle or anteversion angle of the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We found better clinical efficacy after using the SuperPath approach with less muscle damage, less postoperative pain and better postoperative function than after using the modified Hardinge approach. Trial registration The randomized clinical trial was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 31/12/2020 (ChiCTR-2000041583, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=57008 ).

Efficacy of Supercapsular Percutaneously-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Elderly With Femoral Neck Fractures: A Meta-analysis

Introduction

Supercapsular Percutaneously-Assisted Total Hip (SuperPATH) approach is a novel minimally invasive surgical technique for total hip arthroplasty (THA). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the outcomes following THA via the SuperPATH approach in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures (FNFs), compared with those via traditional surgical approaches.

Methods

Eligible studies were retrieved through searching 7 electronic databases and manually screening related references. Objectives were surgical-related parameters, functional outcomes, and incidence of postoperative complications.

Results

9 comparative studies were included. Pooled results suggested that at the cost of longer operative time (WMD: 14.25, 95% CI: 3.25 to 25.25), the SuperPATH technique was superior to traditional approaches regarding incision length (WMD: −4.51, 95% CI: −6.46 to −2.56), intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −80.47, 95% CI: −122.36 to −38.57), and hospital stays (WMD: −3.35, 95% CI: −5.05 to −1.65). SuperPATH groups exhibited significantly increased Harris Hip Scores within 1 month after surgery (7d, WMD: 9.85, 95% CI: 6.40 to 13.30; 14d, WMD: 10.68, 95% CI: 8.29 to 13.08; 1 month, WMD: 6.17, 95% CI: 3.56 to 8.78) and had a reduced incidence of overall complications (OR: .19, 95% CI: .09 to .41). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding postoperative pain relief.

Conclusion

Elderly patients with FNFs are potential candidates for THA treatment via the SuperPATH technique, which is associated with improved surgical outcomes, better short-term functional recovery, and lower risk of total complications as compared to traditional approaches. Additional studies are needed to further confirm our conclusions and validate the long-term efficacy of SuperPATH.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the SuperPATH Approach in Hip Arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiographic results of the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH) approach and the conventional approach in hip arthroplasty.

DESIGN

Based on a prepublished protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020177717), we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for relevant literatures up to January 30, 2021. The methodological qualities were assessed using the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Collaboration for Systematic Reviews. Randomized- or fixed-effect models were used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), respectively, for continuous and dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

6 articles were included in the study, and 526 patients were selected, which included 233 cases in the SuperPATH groups and 279 cases in the conventional groups, and 4 cases performed two surgeries in succession. The SuperPATH group demonstrated shorter incision length (WMD = -7.87, 95% CI (-10.05, -5.69), P < 0.00001), decreased blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.25, 0.89), P = 0.02), decreased visual analogue scale (VAS) (WMD = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.72, -0.08), P = 0.02), and higher Harris hip score (HHS) (WMD = 1.98, 95% CI (0.18, 3.77), P = 0.03) than the conventional group. However, there was no difference in VAS (P = 0.14) and HHS (P = 0.86) between the two groups 3 months later, nor in the acetabular abduction angle (P = 0.32) in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SuperPATH, as a minimally invasive approach with its reduced tissue damage, quick postoperative recovery, and early rehabilitation, demonstrates the short-term advantages of hip arthroplasty. As the evidences in favor of the SuperPATH technique were limited in a small number of studies and short duration of follow-up, more research is required to further analyze its long-term effect.