Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is generally considered to be one of the most successful orthopedic surgical procedures. THA patients continue to experience symptoms, most commonly pain, which prevent their return to full function and activity. Possible causes include failure of fixation, instability and damage to soft tissues, associated with the trauma of the surgical procedure. Choosing the optimal surgical approach can minimize these risks and therefore improve the outcome of THA. Surgical approaches in THA include anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 techniques. However, there is no current consensus regarding which approach is the most suitable. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications among THA approach and identify which approach is the best for THA. We searched all RCT studies that compared intra-operative and postoperative outcomes of anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 approaches for THA from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 1, 2017. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. A network meta-analysis was applied to assess treatment outcomes. Probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Fourteen RCTs (N = 1017 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions were anterior (N = 233 patients), lateral (N = 334 patients), posterior (N = 405 patients) and posterior-2 (N = 45 patients) approaches. A network meta-analysis showed that effects of anterior approach were higher to lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches with the pooled mean postoperative within 1 month and last follow-up of HHS of 2.56 (95% CI - 0.79, 5.91), 4.80 (95% CI 1.33, 8.26), 10.80 (95% CI 2.10, 19.49) and 6.40 (95% CI 0.72, 12.09), 2.22 (95% CI - 3.21, 7.66), 4.22 (95% CI - 6.81, 15.25), respectively. For VAS, lateral approach was lower to anterior, posterior and posterior-2 approaches. In terms of complication, posterior approach was the lowest risk with RR of 0.39 (95% CI 0.19, 0.81), 0.57 (95% CI 0.21, 1.57) and 1.74 (95% CI 0.36, 8.33) when compared to anterior, followed by lateral and posterior-2 approaches. Results of SUCRA indicated anterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative HHS and VAS score, while posterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative complications. We recommended using lateral approach that has an acceptable postoperative pain, function and complications (second rank for all outcomes) as a surgical technique for THA.

Risk of revision and dislocation in single, dual mobility and large femoral head total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Postoperative dislocation is a challenging complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) that affects patient outcome worldwide. Instability is one of the main complications with rates exceeding 20% in some series. Currently, alternative acetabular components are available with dual mobility (DMTHA) bearing surfaces and larger femoral head size that may reduce the risk of dislocation, yet provide the functional benefit of standard single mobility (STHA) bearing surface THA. However, whether STHA, big femoral head (BTHA) and DMTHA should be used is still controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of BTHA, STHA and DMTHA in primary or revision THA. These clinical outcomes consist of postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to June 8, 2017, that reported postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of either implant THA. Eleven of 677 studies (nine comparative studies and two RCTs) (N = 4084 patients) were eligible; all 11 studies were included in pooling. Intervention included dual mobility THA (N = 1068 patients), standard THA (N = 2568 patients), big head THA (N = 378 patients) and constrain THA (N = 70 patients). A network meta-analysis showed that risk of revision and dislocation of DMTHA was significantly lower with RR of 2.19 (1.36, 3.53) and 4.19 (2.04, 8.62) when compared to STHA. While there was no statistically significant risk of having revision and dislocation of DMTHA when compared to BTHA and CTHA. The SUCRA probability of DM and BTHA was in the first and second rank with 46.5 and 44.8% in the risk of revision and 46.7 and 45.1% in the risk of dislocations. In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), the best implant of choice that has lowest risk of revision and dislocation after THA is DMTHA follow by BTHA. We recommend using dual mobility and big head as an implant for safety in THA. However, there were only two studies that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to further evaluate which implants are the best for THA.

Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-regression to compare postoperative outcomes of pain VAS, knee function score, range of motion, complications and revision surgery rates between UKA and TKA were conducted. Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and Scopus from inception to August 29, 2014. RESULTS: Three of 1056 studies were eligible; two, three, two, three and three studies were included in pooling of pain visual analog score (VAS), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Bristol Knee Score (BKS), maximum knee flexion, postoperative complications (aseptic loosening, progressive degenerative joint disease of lateral compartment, bearing dislocation, DVT, fractures and infection) and revision rates, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference (UMD) of the function scores (KSS, BS) for UKA was 1.62 (95 % CI -1.17, 4.42) better than TKA and for pain score was 0.1 (95 % CI -3.54, 3.73) higher than TKA, but both without statistical significance. UKA was more likely to show higher mean maximum knee flexion with a UMD of 1.88 (95 % CI -0.54, 4.30) when compared to TKA, but was also not statistically significant. UKA had a statistically significant lower chance of postoperative complications by 0.35 U (95 % CI 0.12, 0.98) when compared to TKA, but had higher revision rates than TKA with a value of 5.36 (95 % CI 1.06, 27.08). CONCLUSION: In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), TKA had higher postoperative complications than UKA, but had lower revision rates. There was only one study that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to better evaluate UKA and TKA in the treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.