Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Indirect comparisons of traction table versus standard table in total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach: a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 19, Article number: 384 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

It remains unclear whether the use of an orthopaedic traction table (TT) in direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) results in better outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the THA outcomes through DAA on a standard operating table and the THA outcomes through DAA on a TT.

Methods

PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 01 January 2024. An indirect comparison in network meta-analysis was performed to assess treatment effects between DAA on a TT and DAA on a standard table, using fixed-effects and random-effects models estimated with frequentist approach and consistency assumption. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated for binary variables.

Results

The systematic review of the literature identified 43 RCTs with a total of 2,258 patients. DAA with TT had a 102.3 mL higher intraoperative blood loss and a 0.6 mmol/L lower Hb 3 days postoperatively compared with DAA without TT (SMD = 102.33, 95% CI 47.62 to 157.04; SMD = − 0.60, 95% CI  − 1.19 to − 0.00). DAA with TT had a 0.15 lower periprosthetic fracture OR compared with DAA without TT (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.86). There were no further significant differences in surgical, radiological, functional outcomes and in complication rates.

Conclusion

Based on our findings and taking into account the limitations, we recommend that particular attention be paid to the risk of periprosthetic fracture in DAA on a standard operating table and blood loss in DAA with TT. Since numerous other surgical, radiological, functional outcome parameters and other complication rates studied showed no significant difference between DAA on a standard operating table and DAA with TT, no recommendation for a change in surgical technique seems justified.

Level of evidence

Level I evidence, because this is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction

In present day total hip arthroplasty (THA), the direct anterior approach (DAA) has emerged as the leading technique regarding the short-term outcome of THA [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Today's modern THA through DAA [11, 12] can be performed with both a standard operating table and an orthopedic traction table [11,12,13,14]. Both surgical techniques have numerous proponents with rational arguments for their preferred choice. The main advantage of using a TT in DAA is generally a better view of the surgical site with a relatively short skin incision length [11,12,13,14]. There is also no risk of injuring the gluteal muscle during the operation [11,12,13,14]. However, this improved view is achieved by temporarily placing the operated leg in a non-physiological position [13,14,15]. Therefore, the foot of the operated leg must be rotated almost 180° externally in the foot holder and the hip must be fully extended under permanent traction [13,14,15]. With THA through DAA on a standard operating table, this non-physiological leg positioning is not necessary [11,12,13,14]. The leg only has to be lowered onto the operating table intraoperatively and thus the hip joint is simply hyperextended by about 30° [11,12,13,14]. In addition, on a standard operating table the leg length discrepancy can be easily checked and the prosthesis can be easily tested for a tendency to dislocation. With the DAA on a TT, this is only possible if the operated leg is removed from the foot holder [13,14,15].

Given the advantages and disadvantages, it is important to determine patient outcomes with both DAA techniques. Nonetheless, the literature is sparse on meaningful studies on this controversial subject. Therefore, our aim is to perform the first systematic review and network meta-analysis of the THA outcome through DAA on a standard operating table compared with the THA outcome through DAA on a TT, including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of primary data.

We formulated the following PICO question: In human participants with a hip condition such as osteoarthritis, dysplasia, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head or femoral neck fracture, is THA through DAA on a TT superior to THA through DAA on a standard operating table in terms of surgical, functional and radiological outcomes, and complications?

Methods

Search strategy and data selection

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions was strictly adhered to for proper reflection of methodology and presentation of meta-data. [16]. The PRISMA Checklist is provided in the supplement. After registration of the study protocol in PROSPERO [CRD42023446806] on 31 July 2023, PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant records up to 01 January 2024. The exact search string was: (((direct anterior approach) OR (DAA) OR (anterior approach)) AND ((total hip arthroplasty) OR (THA) OR (hip replacement))). A BOOLEAN search strategy was used and adapted to the syntax of the searched databases. The search was limited to studies that were not older than 15 years. No further restrictions to the initial literature search were applied.

A step-by-step screening process was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines [17]. After the identification of relevant records in the initial literature search, all duplicates were removed. In the next step, the titles and abstracts of the identified records were screened. Finally, the full texts of the selected records were screened for eligibility, according to the inclusion criteria. The decision on the inclusion of each study was made by the consensus between two reviewers. In terms of persisting disagreement a third reviewer was involved. The inter-reviewer agreement for the two reviewers was calculated for each stage of the search process and it was reported with a Kappa (κ) statistic.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied: (i) types of studies: 2- or 3-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (ii) types of participants: human participants with a hip condition such as osteoarthritis, dysplasia, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head or femoral neck fracture; (iii) types of interventions: THA through DAA on a standard operating table compared with conventional surgical THA approach; THA through DAA on an orthopedic traction table compared with another approach or technique, or with another DAA group; (iv) types of outcome measures: surgical outcome parameters: operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss; radiological outcome: acetabular cup inclination angle; functional outcome: pain visual analog scale (VAS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) [18]; serum biomarkers: hemoglobin (Hb); complications such as dislocation, infection, periprosthetic fracture, deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), haematoma, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) palsy, and reoperation.

The following exclusion criteria were applied: (i) bilateral THA; (ii) navigated THA or robotic assisted THA; (iii) unclear use of traction table; (iv) no outcome of interest.

Data extraction

The following data were independently extracted by two reviewers: author names, publication year and study origin, characteristics of participants, THA indication, follow-up period, operating table usage, patient positioning, relevant outcomes, and relevant additional information for the RCT quality assessment. For serum biomarkers, different units were often used in the included RCTs. Therefore, some values had to be converted in order to standardize the units. If the author group and the hospital where the RCT was conducted were the same, we carefully checked whether the patient cohort was the same or different to avoid overlapping data extraction. The extracted data are provided in the supplement.

Definition of traction table

The “traction table” is a common orthopedic operating table. In the literature, other terms such as “Hana table”, “fracture table” or “extension table” are used as synonyms for “traction table”. Furthermore, this operating table is often described in more detail with the adjective "orthopedic". This network meta-analysis adhered to the term “traction table” (TT). As an alternative to the TT, the standard operating table is also used in DAA regularly. As positioning the patient on a TT does not necessarily mean that the foot is clamped in the foot holder, the corresponding authors of the included RCTs were strictly contacted if there was any doubt about the reported information on the operating table, as this particular information is crucial to the conduct of this study. Information on all authors contacted by phone or email is reported in Table 1.

Table 1 Main characteristics of the RCTs and the patient cohort
Full size table

RCT quality assessment

The revised JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for the assessment of risk of bias in RCTs was used to critically appraise the internal validity [19]. In addition to the overall assessment of study quality, the revised tool was designed to facilitate specific assessments of the bias domains to which the questions belong, if necessary. Thresholds for grading the severity of bias are not appropriate in the tool. It is recommended that results are presented using a checklist approach. The checklist uses ‘+’ for fulfilled, ‘−’ for unclear and ‘×’ for not fulfilled [19]. Publication bias for all RCTs was calculated, using the Egger’s test and it was presented in funnel plots [20].

Missing data and data preparation

If relevant data was missing, the corresponding authors were contacted by email or phone. If the standard deviation (SD) was not reported, the missing SD value was replaced with the weighted average of the existing SDs (weighted average imputation) [21]. If information on the TT application was missing or was in doubt, the corresponding authors were strictly contacted so that the primary data do not provide us with any doubtful information about the TT application. When the RCTs provided different information on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and the per-protocol (PP) analysis, the numbers from the ITT analysis were used. If the literature search identified 3-arm RCTs of DAA, one of the three patient groups was included in the common comparator group, and the other two patient groups were statistically combined and included in either the DAA with TT or DAA without TT treatment group. If an RCT investigated different DAA groups, the DAA group with the specific treatment (use of bone wax, special retraction system, etc.) was included in the common comparator group, and the RCT’s DAA control group without the specific treatment was included in either the network meta-analysis’ DAA with TT or the network meta-analysis’ DAA without TT treatment group. In this way, we have tried to ensure homogeneous treatment groups without interfering factors.

Measures of treatment effect

Indirect comparison: network meta-analysis

An indirect comparison in network meta-analysis was performed to assess treatment effects between DAA on a TT and DAA on a standard table. The surgical approach or technique in THA to which DAA was compared in the primary RCT was used as a common comparator and reference node within the network. All analyses were conducted using fixed-effects and random-effects models estimated with frequentist approach and consistency assumption. In interpreting the meta-results, the random effects model was followed since it seems to be generalizable beyond the included RCTs, due to low to moderate heterogeneity and content validity of the included studies [22]. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated for binary variables. Heterogeneity was assessed using a test on Cochrane’s Q statistic and Higgins’ I2 test. The meta-results were presented graphically in forest plots, where the results of each RCT were represented as boxes on a horizontal axis, with the size of the box indicating the statistical power of the study. The overall effect of all RCTs was illustrated with a rhombus. In the forest plot, the position of the rhombus along the abscissa favors either DAA on a TT or DAA on a standard operating table. If the rhombus does not cross the ordinate, these are significant results in favor of one of both groups. As we calculated SD values by imputation, we also performed a sensitivity analysis to check the robustness of the results after imputation. We added the weighted average and multiplied it by 1.5, which means that we increased the SD from imputation by 50%. All statistical analyses were performed by a professional statistician (RH) using netmeta and metaphor packages in the R software version 4.2.1 [23].

Results

Systematic review of literature

After an initial literature search in PubMed, Epistemonikos and Google Scholar and a subsequent stepwise inclusion process, a total of 52 [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] were assessed for eligibility with full inter-reviewer agreement (κ = 1.0). After excluding 9 RCTs [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], 43 RCTs [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] with a total of 2,258 patients met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the network meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Of these 43 RCTs [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75], 17 RCTs [33,34,35,36, 39, 43,44,45, 47, 50, 53, 55, 58, 63,64,65,66] with a total of 804 patients reported THA using a TT and 26 RCTs [37, 38, 40,41,42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59,60,61,62, 67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] with a total of 1,454 patients reported THA using a standard operating table. Further information on the RCTs included [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] and patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Some of the included RCTs had the same author group and the same hospital where the RCT was conducted [34, 35, 44, 45, 51, 52, 61, 62, 65, 66, 73, 75]. These RCTs were nevertheless included because the patient cohorts [44, 45, 61, 62, 65, 66, 73, 75] or at least the extracted outcome parameters were still different [34, 35, 51, 52]. This was the case for the following reasons: (i) the RCTs were conducted at different periods of time and had different patient cohorts [44, 45, 61, 62, 65, 66, 73, 75]; (ii) the RCTs had identical patient cohorts, but the outcome parameters were different, assessed and reported at different time points [34, 35, 51, 52].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the search results and selection according to our inclusion criteria. DAA: direct anterior approach; TT: traction table; RCT: randomized controlled trial; THA: total hip arthroplasty

Full size image

Of the 43 RCTs included in this network meta-analysis, 24 were 2-arm RCTs comparing either DAA with TT or on a standard operating table with a conventional approach [34,35,36,37,38,39, 41, 42, 48, 49, 51,52,53, 55,56,57, 59,60,61,62, 65,66,67, 73]. Furthermore, of the 43 RCTs, two were 3-arm RCTs [50, 75]. Kleinert et al. [50] divided their patient cohort according to the postoperative redon drainage application. The first group of patients was treated postoperatively with a redon drain, the second group was treated postoperatively with a standard redon drain and the third group was treated with an investigated special drain. The first and second groups were statistically combined and included in the experimental group of the present network meta-analysis; the third group with the special drainage was included in the common comparator group of the present network meta-analysis. Zhao et al. [75] divided their patient cohort according to the tranexamic acid application. The first group of patients was treated postoperatively with oral tranexamic acid application, the second group was treated intraoperatively with intravenous tranexamic acid application and the third group was treated without tranxamic acid application. The first and second groups were statistically combined and included in the experimental group of the present network meta-analysis; the third group without tranxamic acid application was included in the common comparison group of the present network meta-analysis. Of the 43 RCTs included in this network meta-analysis, 17 were 2-arm RCTs [33, 40, 43,44,45,46,47, 54, 58, 63, 64, 68,69,70,71,72, 74], comparing two different DAA groups. The DAA group with the specific treatment (use of bone wax, special retraction system, etc.) was included in the common comparator group of the present network meta-analysis. During data extraction, an obvious typing error was found in the RCT by Taunton et al. [66]. In this RCT [66], the standard deviation value for BMI was calculated from the extracted range (calculated SD = 5). The calculated value of '5' replaced the original value of '22' as it could not possibly be statistically correct.

RCT quality assessment

The results of the risk of bias quality assessment of the included RCTs using the revised JBI Critical Appraisal Tool varied from low to moderate (Table 2). The assessment of publication bias using the Egger’s test is shown in Table 3 (Table 3). The funnel plots for each outcome parameter are available in the supplement.

Table 2 Assessment of risk of bias with the revised JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs
Full size table
Table 3 Results of the network meta-analysis for all outcome parameters included
Full size table

Indirect comparison in network meta-analysis

The results of the network meta-analysis for all outcome parameters included are shown in Table 3. A summary of the extracted data showing the mean values of the continuous outcome parameters and the event percentages of the dichotomous outcome parameters is shown in Table 4 and 5. The 3 outcome parameters that showed statistically significant differences are presented in forest plots (Fig. 2–4). The forest plots for each outcome parameters are available in the supplement.

Table 4 Summary of the extracted data showing the mean values of the continuous outcome parameters
Full size table
Table 5 Summary of the extracted data showing the mean values of the continuous outcome parameters and the event percentages of the dichotomous outcome parameters (Continuation of Table 4)
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of the intraoperative blood loss. The SMD of the summary measure has positive values, which favours DAA THA on a standard operating table (SMD = 102.33, 95% CI  47.62 to 157.04). RCT: randomized controlled trial; SMD: standardized mean difference; CI: confidence interval; DAA: direct anterior approach; TT: traction table

Full size image

Intraoperative blood loss

In an indirect comparison between DAA with TT and DAA without TT, data on 1850 patients were pooled from 17 RCTs (p < 0.01, Fig. 2, Tables 3, 4). DAA with TT had a 101.38 mL higher intraoperative blood loss compared with DAA without TT (SMD = 101.38, 95% CI 43.92 to 158.83).

Hb 3 days postoperatively

In an indirect comparison between DAA with TT and DAA without TT, data on 764 patients were pooled from 6 RCTs (p = 0.05, Fig. 3, Tables 3, 5). DAA with TT had a 0.60 mmol/L lower Hb 3 days postoperatively compared with DAA without TT (SMD = − 0.60, 95% CI − 1.19 to − 0.00).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the Hb 3 days postoperatively. The SMD of the summary measure has negative values, which favours DAA THA on a standard operating table (SMD = − 0.60, 95% CI  − 1.19 to − 0.00). RCT: randomized controlled trial; SMD: standardized mean difference; CI: confidence interval; DAA: direct anterior approach; TT: traction table

Full size image

Periprosthetic fracture

In an indirect comparison between DAA with TT and DAA without TT, data on 1300 patients were pooled from 12 RCTs (p = 0.03, Fig. 4, Tables 3, 5). DAA with TT had a 0.15 lower periprosthetic fracture rate compared with DAA without TT (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.86).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of the periprosthetic fracture rate. The OR of the summary measure has values < 1, which favours DAA THA with TT (OR 0.15, 95% CI  0.03 to 0.86). RCT: randomized controlled trial; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; DAA: direct anterior approach; TT: traction table

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis led in very small changes in the results, indicating that the SD imputation performed does not significantly affect the results and that the subsequent findings are reliable. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in the supplement.

Discussion

The main findings were that DAA with TT had higher intraoperative blood loss and lower Hb levels three days postoperatively. DAA on a standard operating table had a higher periprosthetic fracture rate. There were no other differences in outcomes between the two groups. By including RCTs and using only high-quality statistical methods, we believe this is the best available evidence on the use of TT in DAA.

There are no relevant primary studies directly comparing DAA on a standard operating table to DAA on a TT, apart from a few non-randomized studies [76,77,78]. However, the only systematic review that addresses the role of TT in DAA [14] has some severe limitations. In their 2020 systematic review, Sarraj et al. did not perform a classical meta-analysis of the extracted data that could reveal differences in the effect of both surgical techniques. Moreover, they included several studies of lower quality [14]. Furthermore, there is a meta-analysis on DAA with a different study focus that additionally examined the TT influence in a subgroup meta-analysis [8]. The severe limitation here is that there were only four primary studies included in this subgroup meta-analysis with an overall small sample size [8].

Intraoperative blood loss in THA through DAA with TT ranged from 133.7 to 690 mL with an average of 479.1 mL. Intraoperative blood loss in THA through DAA on a standard operating table ranged from 359.7 to 1344.0 mL with an average of 393.2 mL. DAA with TT had a 102.33 mL higher intraoperative blood loss compared with DAA on a standard operating table. The Hb 3 days postoperatively in THA through DAA with TT was 5.4 mmol/L. The Hb three days postoperatively in THA through DAA on a standard operating table ranged from 5.9 to 7.0 mmol/L with an average of 6.5 mL in THA through DAA on a standard operating table. DAA with TT had a 0.60 mmol/L lower Hb three days postoperatively compared with DAA on a standard operating table.

In high-quality studies on this topic, great importance is attached to the consideration of hidden blood loss. This can be estimated well using meaningful serum biomarkers such as Hb. When interpreting the results of this network meta-analysis, it must be emphasized immediately that the outcome parameters Hb one day and Hb two days postoperatively did not show any significant differences. Furthermore, the postoperative drainage volume could not be taken into account in the RCTs due to a lack of primary data or a lack of practical application of postoperative drainage systems.

Information on intraoperative blood loss in DAA with TT was collected from 8 RCTs [33, 34, 44, 45, 47, 50, 63, 64] with overall 471 patients. The results of the individual RCTs do not show any major outliers and appear to be rather uniform (133.7 – 690.0 mL). Information on intraoperative blood loss in DAA without TT was collected from nine RCTs [37, 41, 57, 60, 61, 69, 71, 73, 75] with overall 441 patients. When analyzing the individual RCTs, the excessively high blood loss in the RCT by D'Arrigo et al. [41] is immediately noticeable. Apart from this RCT, the other 8 RCTs [37, 57, 60, 61, 69, 71, 73, 75] do not show any significant outliers (range 359.7–444.4 mL). The mean blood loss would be significantly lower if the RCT by D'Arrigo et al. [41] is omitted. A closer look at the RCT by D’Arrigo et al. [41] also reveals no explanation for the high mean blood loss. However, it is noticeable that the blood loss in the control group of this RCT, which corresponds to the common comparator group of our network meta-analysis, also appears to be excessively high. The RCT by D’Arrigo et al. [41] distorts the blood loss results to the disadvantage of the DAA without TT group. Omitting the distorting RCT by D'Arrigo et al. [41] would show an even clearer and larger difference between DAA with TT and DAA without TT than the difference that was found in the present network meta-analysis.

Information on Hb three days postoperatively in DAA with TT was collected from one sinlge RCT [64], which must be highlighted as a shortcoming in the reliability of the results. However, this RCT [64] provided information on 61 THA patients, which is not a moderate sample size. Information on Hb 3 days postoperatively in DAA without TT was collected from five RCTs [51, 54, 69, 71, 75] with overall 355 patients. The results of the individual RCTs do not show any major outliers and appear to be rather uniform (range: 5.9 – 7.0 mmol/L).

There is no indication in the literature as to what blood loss difference represents a minimal clinically important difference. Nevertheless, the observed difference of approximately 100 m/L appears to be meaningful. The exposure of the surgical site in DAA with TT and DAA on a standard operating table is quite different despite the identical surgical approach, but due to the different surgical technique. Whether this leads to a different exposure of potentially haemorrhaging vessels with more difficult haemostasis in DAA with TT, we can only speculate at present. This result is interesting and should be investigated further in new studies, comparing DAA with TT with DAA on a standard table with a focus on the blood loss. The other analyzed parameters of surgical, radiological and functional outcomes showed no significant differences.

The periprosthetic fracture rate was 0.63% in THA through DAA with TT and 0.64% in THA through DAA on a standard operating table. DAA with TT had a 0.15 lower periprosthetic fracture OR compared with DAA without TT. A total of 15 RCTs [33,34,35,36, 39, 43,44,45, 50, 53, 55, 58, 63, 65, 66] with overall 633 patients reported information on periprosthetic fracture rate in DAA with TT. Of these 633 patient cases, only four cases (0.63%) had periprosthetic fractures. These four cases were reported in two RCTs [39, 65] with overall 62 patients. Cheng et al. [39] reported two periprosthetic fractures in their RCT. The first was an intraoperative femoral perforation during femoral broaching. It was treated with protected weight bearing for six weeks. The second was an avulsion fracture of the greater trochanter, which was treated conservatively. Taunton et al. reported two cases of intraoperative fractures of the calcar in their RCT [65]. They were treated with intraoperative cerclage wiring.

A total of 18 RCTs [37, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 59,60,61,62, 68, 70,71,72,73, 75] with overall 1088 patients reported information on periprosthetic fracture rate in DAA on standard operating table. Of these 1,088 patient cases, only seven cases (0.64%) resulted in periprosthetic fractures. These seven cases were reported in 6 RCTs [41, 52, 56, 68, 71, 73] with a total of 357 patients. In their RCT [41], D’Arrigo et al. reported one avulsion fracture of greater trochanter and one proximal femoral fracture. Mjaaland et al. reported in their RCT [52] an avulsion fracture of the greater trochanter, which was fixed with a cable wire during the primary operation. In their RCT [56], Nistor et al. reported an avulsion fracture of the greater trochanter, which did not require fixation. The same complication was observed in the RCTs by Vandeputte et al. [68], Xiao et al. [71], and Zhao et al. [73].

When interpreting the periprosthetic fracture results, the moderate number of cases is striking, which calls into question the reliability of the results, but cannot invalidate them. The results are statistically significant. One possible explanation for the higher rate of greater trochanter avulsion fractures in DAA on a standard operating table is the need to lever with the retractor in order to obtain an overview of the surgical site. This leverage effect on the greater trochanter is not necessary in DAA with TT, as exposure of the surgical site is achieved by traction and rotation movements with the foot holder. A possible solution for DAA on a standard operating table to reduce the risk of periprosthetic fractures may be to reduce the leverage of the retractor on the greater trochanter by improving the release.

It is known that the femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) palsy is a typical complication of DAA due to the nature of surgical approach. Our meta-data on LFCN palsy rate were collected from 34 RCTs [33,34,35,36,37, 39,40,41, 43,44,45,46, 48,49,50, 52,53,54,55,56, 58,59,60,61,62,63, 65, 66, 68, 70,71,72,73, 75], which reported a total of 62 LFCN palsy events in 1,721 THA patients. Here, it is important to recognize from the present network meta-analysis that the use of TT in DAA has no effect on the LFCN palsy rate. The other complication rates analyzed and the overall complication rate also showed no significant differences.

The interpretation of the results is very important for our daily orthopaedic practice. The difference of approximately 100 ml less intraoperative blood loss with DAATHA on a standard operating table does not appear to justify a change in surgical technique. There are enough known measures such as tranexamic acid application, heat preservation etc. that can minimize blood loss. However, the potentially higher blood loss should be considered by surgeons and proponents of DAA THA with TT. The higher rate of periprosthetic fractures in DAA on a standard operating table, and more specifically of avulsion fracture pf the greater trochanteric, probably due to the leverage provided by the retractor, is a very interesting and valuable finding. This should definitely be investigated further. If the meta-data of the present network meta-analysis is confirmed, it would provide a solid argument for the use of the TT.

Several limitations apply to this network meta-analysis: (1) Due to the lack of RCTs that directly compare DAA THA with TT with DAA THA on a standard operating table, an indirect comparison of both techniques was performed. (2) Due to insufficient data, some outcome parameters have a low number of DAA THA patient cases. (3) As usual for similar studies, there are also possible confounding factors that could distort the results in some way (e.g. the surgeon operating skills, bone cement use, different implants types). (4) For some of the analyzed outcome parameters, the heterogeneity and publication bias of the included RCTs call into question the reliability of the results.

Conclusion

Based on our findings and taking into account the study limitations, we recommend that particular attention be paid to the risk of periprosthetic fracture in DAA on a standard operating table and blood loss in DAA with TT. Reducing the leverage of the retractor on the greater trochanter by improving the release may be a possible solution. Since numerous other surgical, radiological, functional outcome parameters and other complication rates studied showed no significant difference between DAA on a standard operating table and DAA with TT, no recommendation for a change in surgical technique seems justified.

Availability of data and materials

Raw data extraction sheet is available in supplement.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

DAA:

Direct anterior approach

DVT:

Deep vein thrombosis

HHS:

Harris Hip Score

ITT:

Intention to treat

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

LFCN:

Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

OR:

Odds ratio

PE:

Pulmonary embolism

PP:

Per protocol

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCTs:

Randomized controlled studies

RoB:

Risk of bias

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

TT:

Traction table

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):419–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jia F, Guo B, Xu F, Hou Y, Tang X, Huang L. A comparison of clinical, radiographic and surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior and posterior approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int. 2019;29(6):584–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018820652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kucukdurmaz F, Sukeik M, Parvizi J. A meta-analysis comparing the direct anterior with other approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Surgeon. 2019;17(5):291–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2018.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hip arthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Putananon C, Tuchinda H, Arirachakaran A, Wongsak S, Narinsorasak T, Kongtharvonskul J. Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(2):255–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2046-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH, Zhou YJ, Gu XM, Wang HH, Feng W, Cheng YX, Sheng X, Bao HW. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0929-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yue C, Kang P, Pei F. Comparison of direct anterior and lateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(50):e2126. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramadanov N, Bueschges S, Lazaru P, Dimitrov D. A meta-analysis on RCTs of direct anterior and conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00405-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramadanov N, Bueschges S, Liu K, Lazaru P, Marintschev I. Direct anterior approach vs. SuperPATH vs. conventional approaches in total hip replacement: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(8):103058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103058.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramadanov N, Bueschges S, Liu K, Lazaru P, Marintschev I. Direct and indirect comparisons in network meta-analysis of SuperPATH, direct anterior and posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):16778. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20242-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rachbauer F, Kain MS, Leunig M. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin N Am. 2009;40(3):311–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith-Petersen MN. Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A(1):40–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldberg TD, Kreuzer S, Randelli F, Macheras GA. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty with an orthopedic traction table. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2021; 33(4):331–340. English. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-021-00722-x

  14. Sarraj M, Chen A, Ekhtiari S, Rubinger L. Traction table versus standard table total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior approach: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2020;30(6):662–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019900987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Judet J, Judet H. Voie d'abord antérieure dans l'arthroplastie totale de la hanche [Anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty]. Presse Med. 1985; 14(18):1031–3. French.

  16. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catalá-López F, Gøtzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Jt Surg. 1969;51(4):737–55. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-196951040-00012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Tufanaru C, Leonardi-Bee J, Aromataris E, Munn Z. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):494–506. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2018;74(3):785–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12817.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins JPT, Deeks J, Altman D. Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011:chap 16.

  22. Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Chapman JR. Fixed-effect vs random-effects models for meta-analysis: 3 points to consider. Global Spine J. 2022;12(7):1624–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221110527.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J. Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(12):e115065. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115065. Erratum in: PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(4):e0123364

  24. Christensen CP, Jacobs CA. Comparison of patient function during the first six weeks after direct anterior or posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA): a randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9 Suppl):94–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.12.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moerenhout K, Benoit B, Gaspard HS, Rouleau DM, Laflamme GY. Greater trochanteric pain after primary total hip replacement, comparing the anterior and posterior approach: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(8): 102709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.08.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reininga IH, Stevens M, Wagenmakers R, Boerboom AL, Groothoff JW, Bulstra SK, Zijlstra W. Comparison of gait in patients following a computer-navigated minimally invasive anterior approach and a conventional posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(2):288–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Takada R, Jinno T, Miyatake K, Hirao M, Kimura A, Koga D, Yagishita K, Okawa A. Direct anterior versus anterolateral approach in one-stage supine total hip arthroplasty. Focused on nerve injury: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23(5):783–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang Z, Feng S, Guo KJ, Zha GC. Patient-reported results of simultaneous direct anterior approach and posterolateral approach total hip arthroplasties performed in the same patients. J Orthop Traumatol. 2021;22(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-021-00611-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Zomar BO, Bryant D, Hunter S, Howard JL, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA. A randomised trial comparing spatio-temporal gait parameters after total hip arthroplasty between the direct anterior and direct lateral surgical approaches. Hip Int. 2018;28(5):478–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018760262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Luo Y, Releken Y, Yang D, Yue Y, Liu Z, Kang P. Effects of carbazochrome sodium sulfonate combined with tranexamic acid on hemostasis and inflammation during perioperative period of total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022;108(1): 103092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sang W, Xue S, Xu Y, Liu Y, Zhu L, Ma J. Bikini incision increases the incidence of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury in direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty: a prospective ultrasonic, electrophysiological, and clinical study. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(10):3463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.05.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Xu J, Zhuang WD, Li XW, Yu GY, Lin Y, Luo FQ, Xiao YH. Comparison of the effects of total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach and posterolateral piriformis-sparing approach. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2017;49(2):214–20 (Chinese).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Alvarez-Pinzon AM, Mutnal A, Suarez JC, Jack M, Friedman D, Barsoum WK, Patel PD. Evaluation of wound healing after direct anterior total hip arthroplasty with use of a novel retraction device. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44(1):E17-24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barrett WP, Turner SE, Leopold JP. Prospective randomized study of direct anterior vs postero-lateral approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1634–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barrett WP, Turner SE, Murphy JA, Flener JL, Alton TB. Prospective, randomized study of direct anterior approach vs posterolateral approach total hip arthroplasty: a concise 5-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1139–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bon G, Kacem EB, Lepretre PM, Weissland T, Mertl P, Dehl M, Gabrion A. Does the direct anterior approach allow earlier recovery of walking following total hip arthroplasty? A randomized prospective trial using accelerometry. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(3):445–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.02.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brismar BH, Hallert O, Tedhamre A, Lindgren JU. Early gain in pain reduction and hip function, but more complications following the direct anterior minimally invasive approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial of 100 patients with 5 years of follow up. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(5):484–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1504505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Brun OL, Sund HN, Nordsletten L, Röhrl SM, Mjaaland KE. Component placement in direct lateral vs minimally invasive anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: radiographic outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(8):1718–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng TE, Wallis JA, Taylor NF, Holden CT, Marks P, Smith CL, Armstrong MS, Singh PJ. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty-comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):883–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cooper HJ, Santos WM, Neuwirth AL, Geller JA, Rodriguez JA, Rodriguez-Elizalde S, Shah RP. Randomized controlled trial of incisional negative pressure following high-risk direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(8S):S931–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. D’Arrigo C, Speranza A, Monaco E, Carcangiu A, Ferretti A. Learning curve in tissue sparing total hip replacement: comparison between different approaches. J Orthop Traumatol. 2009;10(1):47–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-008-0043-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. De Anta-Díaz B, Serralta-Gomis J, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Benavidez E, López-Prats FA. No differences between direct anterior and lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty related to muscle damage or functional outcome. Int Orthop. 2016;40(10):2025–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3108-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fahs AM, Koueiter DM, Kurdziel MD, Huynh KA, Perry CR, Verner JJ. Psoas compartment block vs periarticular local anesthetic infiltration for pain management after anterior total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7):2192–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fraval A, Effeney P, Fiddelaers L, Smith B, Towell B, Tran P. OBTAIN a: outcome benefits of tranexamic acid in hip arthroplasty. A randomized double-blinded controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1516–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fraval A, Duncan S, Murray T, Duggan J, Tirosh O, Tran P. OBTAIN E: outcome benefits of tranexamic acid in hip arthroplasty with enoxaparin: a randomised double-blinded controlled trial. Hip Int. 2019;29(3):239–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018780125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Goyal N, Chen AF, Padgett SE, Tan TL, Kheir MM, Hopper RH Jr, Hamilton WG, Hozack WJ. Otto aufranc award: a multicenter, randomized study of outpatient versus inpatient total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(2):364–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4915-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guild GN 3rd, Runner RP, Castilleja GM, Smith MJ, Vu CL. Efficacy of hybrid plasma scalpel in reducing blood loss and transfusions in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):458–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Iorio R, Viglietta E, Mazza D, Iannotti F, Nicolosi I, Carrozzo A, Speranza A, Ferretti A. Do serum markers correlate with invasiveness of the procedure in THA? A prospective randomized study comparing direct anterior and lateral approaches. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(8): 102937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Jin X, Chen G, Chen M, Riaz MN, Wang J, Yang S, Xu W. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between bikini-incision via direct anterior approach and posterolateral approach in simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):7023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29146-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kleinert K, Werner C, Mamisch-Saupe N, Kalberer F, Dora C. Closed suction drainage with or without re-transfusion of filtered shed blood does not offer advantages in primary non-cemented total hip replacement using a direct anterior approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(1):131–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1387-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Pripp AH, Nordsletten L. Comparison of markers for muscle damage, inflammation, and pain using minimally invasive direct anterior versus direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(9):1305–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mjaaland KE, Kivle K, Svenningsen S, Nordsletten L. Do Postoperative results differ in a randomized trial between a direct anterior and a direct lateral approach in THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(1):145–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Moerenhout K, Derome P, Laflamme GY, Leduc S, Gaspard HS, Benoit B. Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg. 2020;63(5):E412–7. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.012019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Mortazavi SMJ, Razzaghof M, Ghadimi E, Seyedtabaei SMM, Vahedian Ardakani M, Moharrami A. The efficacy of bone wax in reduction of perioperative blood loss in total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(20):1805–13. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.22.00376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nambiar M, Cheng TE, Onggo JR, Maingard J, Troupis J, Pope A, Armstrong MS, Singh PJ. No difference in functional, radiographic, and survivorship outcomes between direct anterior or posterior approach THA: 5-year results of a randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(12):2621–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001855.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Nistor DV, Caterev S, Bolboacă SD, Cosma D, Lucaciu DOG, Todor A. Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon? Int Orthop. 2017;41(11):2245–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3480-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Parvizi J, Restrepo C, Maltenfort MG. Total hip arthroplasty performed through direct anterior approach provides superior early outcome: results of a randomized, prospective study. Orthop Clin North Am. 2016;47(3):497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2016.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Perry CR Jr, Fahs AM, Kurdziel MD, Koueiter DM, Fayne RJ, Verner JJ. Intraoperative psoas compartment block vs preoperative fascia iliaca block for pain control after direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1770–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Reichert JC, von Rottkay E, Roth F, Renz T, Hausmann J, Kranz J, Rackwitz L, Nöth U, Rudert M. A prospective randomized comparison of the minimally invasive direct anterior and the transgluteal approach for primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2133-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Pour AE, Hozack WJ. Prospective randomized study of two surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(5):671-9.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rykov K, Reininga IHF, Sietsma MS, Knobben BAS, Ten Have BLEF. Posterolateral vs direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty (POLADA Trial): a randomized controlled trial to assess differences in serum markers. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(12):3652-3658.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rykov K, Meys TWGM, Knobben BAS, Sietsma MS, Reininga IHF, Ten Have BLEF. MRI assessment of muscle damage after the posterolateral versus direct anterior approach for THA (polada trial). A randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(9):3248-3258.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schwartz AM, Goel RK, Sweeney AP, Bradbury TL Jr. Capsular management in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(8):2836–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Suarez JC, Slotkin EM, Szubski CR, Barsoum WK, Patel PD. Prospective, randomized trial to evaluate efficacy of a bipolar sealer in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(11):1953–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 Suppl):169–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Taunton MJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Kaufman K, Pagnano MW. John Charnley award: randomized clinical trial of direct anterior and miniposterior approach THA: which provides better functional recovery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(2):216–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Thaler M, Lechner R, Putzer D, Mayr E, Huber DC, Liebensteiner MC, Nogler M. Two-year gait analysis controls of the minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018;58:34–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.06.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Vandeputte FJ, Vanbiervliet J, Sarac C, Driesen R, Corten K. Capsular resection versus capsular repair in direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(2):321–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-0529.R2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vles GF, Corten K, Driesen R, van Elst C, Ghijselings SG. Hidden blood loss in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, double blind, randomized controlled trial on topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid. Musculoskelet Surg. 2021;105(3):267–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-020-00652-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang Q, Yue Y, Yang Z, Chen L, Li Q, Kang P. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between traditional longitudinal incision and bikini incision in total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(1):222–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Xiao Y, Li Z, Feng E, Lin F, Zhang Y, Weng Y, Chen J. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty with patients in the lateral decubitus versus supine positions: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2022;30(1):23094990221074758. https://doi.org/10.1177/23094990221074758.

  72. Zhang Y, Yao Y, Wang Y, Zhuang Z, Shen Y, Jiang Q, Chen D. Preoperative ultrasound to map the three-dimensional anatomical distribution of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve in direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):623. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02763-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhao HY, Kang PD, Xia YY, Shi XJ, Nie Y, Pei FX. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(11):3421–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhao G, Zhu R, Jiang S, Xu N, Bao H, Wang Y. Using the anterior capsule of the hip joint to protect the tensor fascia lata muscle during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-3035-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Zhao HY, Xiang M, Xia Y, Shi X, Pei FX, Kang P. Efficacy of oral tranexamic acid on blood loss in primary total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior approach: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2018;42(11):2535–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3846-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Moslemi A, Kierszbaum E, Descamps J, Sigonney F, Biau D, Anract P, Hardy A. Does using the direct anterior approach with a standard table for total hip arthroplasty reduce leg length discrepancies? Comparative study of traction table versus standard table. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(1): 102752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wernly D, Wegrzyn J, Lallemand G, Mahlouly J, Tissot C, Antoniadis A. Total hip arthroplasty through the direct anterior approach with and without the use of a traction table: a matched-control, retrospective, single-surgeon study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02184-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Lecoanet P, Vargas M, Pallaro J, Thelen T, Ribes C, Fabre T. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: Can leg length be satisfactorily controlled via anterior approach without a traction table? Evaluation in 56 patients with EOS 3D. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(8):1143–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No fundings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany

    Nikolai Ramadanov, Maximilian Voss, Robert Prill, Hassan Tarek Hakam, Mikhail Salzmann & Roland Becker

  2. Faculty of Health Science Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany

    Nikolai Ramadanov, Robert Prill, Hassan Tarek Hakam & Roland Becker

  3. Faculty of Applied Computer Science, Deggendorf Institute of Technology, Deggendorf, Germany

    Robert Hable

  4. Department of Surgical Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria

    Dobromir Dimitrov

  5. Orthopaedics,Traumatology and Prosthetic Surgery and Revisions of Hip and Knee Implants, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy

    Emanuele Diquattro

  6. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Marko Ostojic

  7. Ergonomics and Biomedical Monitoring Laboratory, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland

    Aleksandra Królikowska

Authors
  1. Nikolai Ramadanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximilian Voss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Hable
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Prill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hassan Tarek Hakam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mikhail Salzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dobromir Dimitrov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Emanuele Diquattro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marko Ostojic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Aleksandra Królikowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Roland Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NR, MV and MS performed the data extraction. RH and NR performed the statistics. RH, NR and MV created tables and figures. NR wrote the manuscript. All authors supervised the whole process and read the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolai Ramadanov.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable as this is a systematic review.

Competing interests

No conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramadanov, N., Voss, M., Hable, R. et al. Indirect comparisons of traction table versus standard table in total hip arthroplasty through direct anterior approach: a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 384 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04852-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04852-3

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X