Evidence Hub

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

Ji-Quan Shen, Wei-Ping Ji, Yong-Hui Shen, Shi-Jie He, Youbin Lin, Zhi-min Ye, Bo Wang

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 2023

60 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 60 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free