Systematic Review of Radiological Analysis of Total Hip Replacement via Direct Anterior Approach in Comparison to Other Approaches – Study Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Maciąg ◽  
Kuba Radzimowski ◽  
Piotr Stępiński ◽  
Jakub Szymczak ◽  
Tomasz Albrewczyński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Anterior Approach ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Direct Anterior Approach ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Radiological Analysis

Abstract Background Total hip arthroplasty (THR) is considered as the most effective available method of treatment of end-stage hip osteoarthritis (OA). This surgery can be performed via many different approaches. One of the newly developed technique is called direct anterior approach (DAA). It gains popularity and recognition as the least traumatic to the soft tissues, thus quickening rehabilitation and improving joint stability in the early postoperative period. There are no systematic reviews covering this subject in terms of potential differences in radiological prosthesis placement, and while there is still unsatisfactory evidence concerning long-term outcomes of DAA, such review may prove useful in the debate. The objective of our study was to systematically collect and review available data from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) regarding radiographic assessment of prosthesis placement after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach compared to other common approaches.Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be conducted. SciFinder, Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Key and The Cochrane Library databases will be searched without restriction to date up to June 2020. Primary outcomes will include measurements related with the radiological analysis of trials comparing use of DAA to other approaches used for THR, containing at least two of the following: femoral stem alignment, mean radiographic cup inclination, mean radiographic cup anteversion, mean radiographic cup abduction, position in Lewinnek's safe zone. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the methodological appraisal of the studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for RCTs. Discussion This systematic review will provide missing information regarding influence of differences between DAA and other surgical approaches in total hip replacement on prosthesis implants placement in case of femoral stem and cup. This may result in improving knowledge and awareness of surgeons, improving patients satisfaction and functional outcome and lowering the risk of hip dislocations and other complications. Trial registration International Registration of Systematic reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42019122675

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Radiological Analysis of Total Hip Replacement Via Direct Anterior Approach in Comparison to Other Approaches – Study Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Maciąg ◽  
Kuba Radzimowski ◽  
Piotr Stępiński ◽  
Jakub Szymczak ◽  
Tomasz Albrewczyński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Anterior Approach ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Direct Anterior Approach ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Radiological Analysis

Abstract BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THR) is considered as the most effective available method of treatment of end-stage hip osteoarthritis (OA). This surgery can be performed via many different approaches. One of the newly developed technique is called direct anterior approach (DAA). It gains popularity and recognition as the least traumatic to the soft tissues, thus quickening rehabilitation and improving joint stability in the early postoperative period. There are no systematic reviews covering this subject in terms of potential differences in radiological prosthesis placement, and while there is still unsatisfactory evidence concerning long-term outcomes of DAA, such review may prove useful in the debate. The objective of our study was to systematically collect and review available data from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) regarding radiographic assessment of prosthesis placement after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach compared to other common approaches.MethodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be conducted. SciFinder, Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Key and The Cochrane Library databases will be searched without restriction to date up to June 2020. Primary outcomes will include measurements related with the radiological analysis of trials comparing use of DAA to other approaches used for THR, containing at least two of the following: femoral stem alignment, mean radiographic cup inclination, mean radiographic cup anteversion, mean radiographic cup abduction, position in Lewinnek's safe zone. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the methodological appraisal of the studies will be assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for RCTs. DiscussionThis systematic review will provide missing information regarding influence of differences between DAA and other surgical approaches in total hip replacement on prosthesis implants placement in case of femoral stem and cup. This may result in improving knowledge and awareness of surgeons, improving patients satisfaction and functional outcome and lowering the risk of hip dislocations and other complications. Trial registrationInternational Registration of Systematic reviews (PROSPERO) numberCRD42019122675

scholarly journals Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Abdulkarim ◽  
Prasad Ellanti ◽  
Nicola Motterlini ◽  
Tom Fahey ◽  
John M. O’Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Implant Fixation ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Optimal Method ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

The optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and metaanalysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms of implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated.

scholarly journals Trigger Point Injections for Chronic Non-Malignant Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review

Pain Medicine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Ann Scott ◽  
Bing Guo ◽  
Pamela M. Barton ◽  
Robert D. Gerwin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Trigger Point ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Published Evidence

ABSTRACT Objective. This systematic review assessed the available published evidence on the efficacy and safety of using trigger point injection (TPI) to treat patients with chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain that had persisted for at least 3 months. Methods. All published systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials detailing the use of TPI in patients with chronic, non-malignant musculoskeletal pain (persisting for >3 months) were identified by systematically searching literature databases and the Websites of various health technology assessment agencies, research registers, and guidelines sites up to July 2006. Results. Although no systematic reviews were identified, 15 peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. However, deficiencies in reporting, small sample sizes, and marked inter-study heterogeneity precluded a definitive synthesis of the data. TPI is a safe procedure when used by clinicians with appropriate expertise and training. It relieved symptoms when used as a sole treatment for patients with chronic head, neck, shoulder, and back pain or whiplash syndrome, regardless of the injectant used, and may be a useful adjunct to intra-articular injection in the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. Although the addition of TPI to stretching exercises augments treatment outcomes, this was also true of other therapies such as ultrasound and laser. Conclusion. The efficacy of TPI is no more certain than it was a decade ago as, overall, there is no clear evidence of either benefit or ineffectiveness. The only advantage of injecting anesthetic into trigger points may be to reduce the pain of the needling process, which may not be an insignificant benefit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document