• Max P L van der Sijp, Danny van Delft, Pieta Krijnen, Niggebrugge Arthur H P AHP Department of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Centre, Den Haag, the Netherlands., and Inger B Schipper.
• Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
• J Arthroplasty. 2018 May 1; 33 (5): 1617-1627.e9.

BackgroundThe lateral approach (LA), posterior approach (PA), and anterior approach (AA) are conventional surgical access routes for hemiarthroplasty in proximal femoral fractures. This meta-analysis assesses and compares the outcomes and attempts to identify the best approach for hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures.MethodsAn electronic search was performed from inception to October 25, 2017, for comparative studies including at least 2 of the conventional approaches. Outcomes including operation time, surgical blood loss, perioperative fractures, wound infections, dislocations, and hospital length of stay were plotted in forest plots.ResultsTwenty-one eligible studies were selected including 3 randomized, controlled trials, 7 prospective and 11 retrospective cohort studies. The odds ratio (OR) for dislocations was significantly higher for the PA compared with the AA (OR, 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 5.43; P = .01) and the LA (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.63 to 5.14; P = .0003). The PA had a higher risk of reoperation compared to the AA (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.41; P < .0001). No significant differences were found concerning perioperative fractures, wound infections, and hospital length of stay. Some studies suggest a better short-term functional outcome using the AA compared to the PA.ConclusionThe PA for hemiarthroplasty in proximal femoral fractures poses an increased risk of dislocation and reoperation compared to the LA and AA. There are no evident advantages of the PA and its routine use for fracture-related hemiarthroplasty should be questioned.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…