Fragility of Statistical Differences Between Surgical Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedics Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-17 DOI:10.3928/01477447-20250401-01
Alec M Giakas, Alexandra L Hohmann, Emma Boyajieff, Mason Sellig, Jess H Lonner
{"title":"Fragility of Statistical Differences Between Surgical Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty.","authors":"Alec M Giakas, Alexandra L Hohmann, Emma Boyajieff, Mason Sellig, Jess H Lonner","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20250401-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful treatment for hip osteoarthritis, but the optimal surgical approach for this procedure is a topic of debate. This review uses fragility analysis to determine the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 3 most common surgical approaches for THA: direct anterior, direct lateral, and posterior.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs comparing 2 of the 3 surgical approaches for THA. Dichotomous outcomes and study characteristics were extracted from each study that met the inclusion criteria. Fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) were calculated for each significant outcome (<i>P</i>≤.05), and reverse fragility index and quotient (rFI and FQ) were calculated for each nonsignificant outcome (<i>P</i>>.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 20 studies in total, with 146 identified dichotomous outcomes. In total, the outcomes had a median FI of 5 and a median rFI of 5. Significant outcomes that favored the anterior approach had a median FI of 6, and significant outcomes that favored the posterior or lateral approach both had a median FI of 1.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RCTs comparing approaches to THA had a median FI of 5, signifying that the reversal of 5 events would be sufficient to change the significance of the entire outcome. This value is comparable to other FI values within the orthopedic literature, but subgroup analyses elucidated areas of greater statistical fragility, particularly in outcomes favoring either the lateral or posterior approach in THA. [<i>Orthopedics.</i> 2025;48(3):166-173.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":"48 3","pages":"166-173"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20250401-01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful treatment for hip osteoarthritis, but the optimal surgical approach for this procedure is a topic of debate. This review uses fragility analysis to determine the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 3 most common surgical approaches for THA: direct anterior, direct lateral, and posterior.

Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs comparing 2 of the 3 surgical approaches for THA. Dichotomous outcomes and study characteristics were extracted from each study that met the inclusion criteria. Fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) were calculated for each significant outcome (P≤.05), and reverse fragility index and quotient (rFI and FQ) were calculated for each nonsignificant outcome (P>.05).

Results: Our search yielded 20 studies in total, with 146 identified dichotomous outcomes. In total, the outcomes had a median FI of 5 and a median rFI of 5. Significant outcomes that favored the anterior approach had a median FI of 6, and significant outcomes that favored the posterior or lateral approach both had a median FI of 1.

Conclusion: The RCTs comparing approaches to THA had a median FI of 5, signifying that the reversal of 5 events would be sufficient to change the significance of the entire outcome. This value is comparable to other FI values within the orthopedic literature, but subgroup analyses elucidated areas of greater statistical fragility, particularly in outcomes favoring either the lateral or posterior approach in THA. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(3):166-173.].

全髋关节置换术入路统计差异的脆弱性。
背景:全髋关节置换术(THA)是髋关节骨关节炎的一种成功治疗方法,但该手术的最佳手术方法是一个有争议的话题。本综述使用脆弱性分析来确定随机对照试验(rct)比较三种最常见的THA手术入路(直接前路、直接侧路和后路)的统计脆弱性。材料和方法:进行了一项系统综述,以确定比较3种THA手术入路中的2种的rct。从符合纳入标准的每项研究中提取二分结果和研究特征。对每个显著结局计算脆弱性指数(FI)和脆弱性商数(FQ) (P≤0.05),对每个不显著结局计算反向脆弱性指数和商数(rFI和FQ) (P≤0.05)。结果:我们的搜索共获得20项研究,其中146项确定了二分类结果。总的来说,结果的中位FI为5,中位rFI为5。支持前路入路的显著结果的中位FI为6,支持后路或外侧入路的显著结果的中位FI均为1。结论:比较THA方法的随机对照试验的中位FI为5,表明5个事件的逆转足以改变整个结局的显著性。该值与骨科文献中的其他FI值相当,但亚组分析阐明了更大的统计脆弱性区域,特别是在THA的侧路或后路结果中。[矫形手术。48 2025;(3): 166 - 173。]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedics
Orthopedics 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice. The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信