AIM The SuperPATH approach has been in practice for almost a decade. There is no systematic review to date comparing the novel SuperPATH approach with conventional approaches. Therefore, it is important to conduct an up-to-date review to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the SuperPATH approach in comparison to widely accepted traditional approaches.Our primary aim was to compare the newer SuperPATH approach with the traditional approaches to the hip in terms of functional outcome and radiological parameters. We also aimed to identify any potential complications of the SuperPATH approach as it is a new surgical technique lacking any published sytematic reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS The review was conducted in accordance with the steps detailed in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic reviews of intervention and will be reported bearing in mind the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PICO terms were independently searched in multiple databases. Studies that compared SuperPATH with traditional approaches were included in the analysis. RESULTS 7 studies including a total of 730 patients were available for final analysis. 3 studies were randomised control trials, 2 were prospective cohort studies and 2 were non-randomised case control studies.Patients in the SuperPATH group were discharged earlier (2 days difference in weighted mean). The operative time was 5 minutes longer (84.46 vs. 78.99) and there was a marginal decrease in blood loss (38 ml lesser) in the SuperPATH approach. VAS Score and HHS at the end of 1 year was comparable in both study groups. Cup abduction angle and anteversion angles were acceptable and comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS The SuperPATH approach shows minimal improvement in length of hospital stay and blood loss with no significant improvement in pain or functional outcome score. There are no major complications reported and the radiological parameters are comparable.

中文翻译：

---

SuperPATH 方法与传统髋关节置换术方法的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目标 SuperPATH 方法已经实践了近十年。迄今为止，还没有系统评价将新颖的 SuperPATH 方法与传统方法进行比较。因此，与广泛接受的传统方法相比，进行最新的审查来评估 SuperPATH 方法的优点和缺点非常重要。我们的主要目的是将较新的 SuperPATH 方法与传统的髋关节入路进行比较功能结果和放射学参数。我们还旨在确定 SuperPATH 方法的任何潜在并发症，因为它是一种缺乏任何已发表的系统评价的新手术技术。材料和方法 审查是根据干预系统审查 Cochrane 手册中详细说明的步骤进行的，并将在报告时考虑系统审查和荟萃分析 (PRISMA) 指南的首选报告项目。PICO 术语在多个数据库中独立检索。分析中纳入了将 SuperPATH 与传统方法进行比较的研究。结果 7 项研究共纳入 730 名患者，可供最终分析。3 项研究为随机对照试验，2 项为前瞻性队列研究，2 项为非随机病例对照研究。SuperPATH 组患者出院较早（加权平均值相差 2 天）。手术时间延长了 5 分钟（84.46 比 78.46）。99）并且 SuperPATH 方法的失血量略有减少（减少了 38 毫升）。1 年结束时两个研究组的 VAS 评分和 HHS 具有可比性。两组的罩杯外展角和前倾角均可接受且具有可比性。结论 SuperPATH 方法在住院时间和失血量方面显示出微小的改善，但在疼痛或功能结果评分方面没有显着改善。没有报告重大并发症，放射学参数具有可比性。结论 SuperPATH 方法在住院时间和失血量方面显示出微小的改善，但在疼痛或功能结果评分方面没有显着改善。没有报告重大并发症，放射学参数具有可比性。结论 SuperPATH 方法在住院时间和失血量方面显示出微小的改善，但在疼痛或功能结果评分方面没有显着改善。没有报告重大并发症，放射学参数具有可比性。