↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

In-hospital outcomes with anterior versus posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
In-hospital outcomes with anterior versus posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s166058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Larry E Miller, Atul F Kamath, Friedrich Boettner, Samir K Bhattacharyya

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether in-hospital outcomes are different with anterior approach (AA) or posterior approach (PA) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We performed a systematic review with random-effects meta-analysis of random-ized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AA with PA in primary THA. Hospital outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR), weight mean difference, or standardized mean difference (SMD). A total of seven RCTs with 609 patients were included. Outcomes favoring AA included 1.4 cm shorter incision (p=0.045), 0.5 days shorter hospital stay (p=0.01), 0.5 points less pain on a 0-10 scale (p=0.007), and less opioid use (SMD=-0.39 corresponding to 12 fewer morphine equivalents per day, p=0.01). The procedure time was 16 minutes longer with AA vs. PA (p=0.002). There were no statistical differences between AA and PA in operative blood loss (mean difference =19 mL, p=0.71), transfusions (9.7% vs. 16.2%, OR=0.45, p=0.39), or complications (5.5% vs. 4.1%, OR=1.42, p=0.62). While the AA to primary THA may take longer time compared with the PA, the incision is shorter, and patients report slightly less pain, require less opioid medication, and leave the hospital earlier. The clinical relevance of these differences during longer-term follow-up is uncertain. The choice of surgical approach in primary THA should also consider factors such as experience of the surgeon and preferences of the surgeon and patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Other 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2020.
All research outputs
#5,556,195
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#541
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,664
of 328,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#16
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.