Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature

Meermans, G., Konan, S., Das, R., Volpin, A., Haddad, F. S.·2017·The Bone & Joint Journal

Abstract

Aims: The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. The direct anterior approach may be associated with a reduced risk of dislocation, faster recovery, reduced pain and fewer surgical complications. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence for the use of this approach in THA. Materials and Methods: Following the Cochrane collaboration, an extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and OvidSP was conducted. Randomised controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included. Outcomes included the length of the incision, blood loss, operating time, length of stay, complications, and gait analysis. Results: A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of medium to low quality. There was no difference between the direct anterior, anterolateral or posterior approaches with regards to length of stay and gait analysis. Papers comparing the length of the incision found similar lengths compared with the lateral approach, and conflicting results when comparing the direct anterior and posterior approaches. Most studies found the mean operating time to be significantly longer when the direct anterior approach was used, with a steep learning curve reported by many. Many authors used validated scores including the Harris hip score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. These mean scores were better following the use of the direct anterior approach for the first six weeks post-operatively. Subsequently there was no difference between these scores and those for the posterior approach. Conclusion: There is little evidence for improved kinematics or better long-term outcomes following the use of the direct anterior approach for THA. There is a steep learning curve with similar rates of complications, length of stay and outcomes. Well-designed, multi-centre, prospective randomised controlled trials are required to provide evidence as to whether the direct anterior approach is better than the lateral or posterior approaches when undertaking THA. Cite this article: Bone JointJ 2017;99-B:732–40.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1302/0301-620x.99b6.38053

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Meermans, G., Konan, S., Das, R., Volpin, A., & Haddad, F. S.
Venue
The Bone & Joint Journal
Published
2017-06
Volume
99-B
Issue
6
Pages
732-740
ISSN
  • 2049-4394 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-4408
OpenAlex
W2620011714
Cited by
316
References
15
FWCI
23.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1302/0301-620x.99b6.38053
The paper
Meermans, G., Konan, S., Das, R., Volpin, A., & Haddad, F. S. (2017). The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. The Bone & Joint Journal. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.99b6.38053

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.