Evaluating the direct superior approach compared to the traditional posterior approach for hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

TL;DR

This study compares two surgical approaches for hip replacement and finds that the newer method reduces hospital stays and pain but doesn't improve overall function.

Contribution

The study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the direct superior approach to the traditional posterior approach in hip arthroplasty.

Findings

DSA reduces hospital stay duration by nearly a day compared to PA.

DSA results in shorter incisions and lower pain scores than PA.

No significant differences were found in functional outcomes or complication rates between the two approaches.

Abstract

The direct superior approach (DSA) has recently emerged as a minimally invasive substitute for the posterior approach (PA) in hip arthroplasty (HA), with the potential to provide better perioperative and functional outcomes. Nevertheless, the current evidence comparing the two approaches is limited and conflicting. Hence, we carried out this study to assess the DSA compared to PA in patients undergoing HA.

A comprehensive search, encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted from inception until April 2025. Studies that compare DSA to PA for patients undergoing HA were included. The primary outcome was the duration of hospital stay, while the secondary outcomes were incision length, functional outcomes, discharge, surgery revision rates, and complications. Mean difference (MD) with a 95 % confidence interval (C.I.) was employed for pooling the continuous variables, while the categorical data were analysed as risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % CI.

Twelve studies, incorporating 147,098 patients, constituted our review. Our pooled estimate favored the DSA in decreasing the duration of hospital stay (MD = −0.95, 95 % CI [-1.32 to −0.57], p = 0.001), and shortening the incision length (MD = −5.16, 95 % CI [-6.48 to −3.85], p = 0.001) compared to the PA. Furthermore, DSA showed notably lower VAS pain scores (MD = −0.39, 95 % CI [-0.69 to −0.09], p = 0.01) and a reduced risk of discharge to rehabilitation (RR = 0.55, 95 % CI [0.40 to 0.75], p = 0.001). However, our pooled analysis did not detect significant differences between the two approaches regarding functional scores, such as HOOS subscales, HHS, OHS, WOMAC, revision rate, and complications.

DSA was associated with a lower hospital stay, shorter incision length, and lower VAS pain scores than the PA. Additionally, no substantial differences were detected regarding functional parameters or complications.

Figures