SuperPATH versus traditional hip replacement in efficacy and safety: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundHip replacement is a popular orthopedic surgery. The methods include SuperPATH and traditional hip replacement. The efficacy and safety of SuperPATH vs. traditional hip replacement might be an intriguing topic.MethodsThe SuperPATH vs. traditional hip replacement comparison for the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, postoperative pain and hip scores were set for the current systematic review and meta-analysis, which can help us determine the differences in the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, postoperative pain severity and postoperative hip function between the 2 groups. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible and 9 RCTs (299 patients with the superPATH, and 379 patients with traditional hip replacement) were enrolled. We focused on the operation characteristics, hospitalization duration, pain, and hip function after orthopedic surgery.ResultsThe meta-analytic results showed that SuperPATH might be associated with a significantly shorter incision length and hospitalization duration. In addition, the postoperative pain severity was lower and the postoperative hip function was better in the SuperPATH group when compared to traditional hip replacement.ConclusionsThe SuperPATH might be beneficial for patients with hip replacement surgery when compared to the traditional hip replacement from the perspective of incision length, hospitalization, pain severity, and hip function. Further RCT studies with a more homogeneous study design and a greater sample size might be warranted in the future.