BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no current consensus on the most suitable hip approach. However, there is a trend to reduce damage to soft tissue, which may have an influence on early outcomes. The SuperPath approach accesses the capsule maintaining integrity of the external rotators. The purpose of this study was to compare the SuperPath approach with the conventional posterior approach, in terms of early outcomes and radiological results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 30 patients operated using the SuperPath approach was prospectively matched for age, gender, body mass index and hip function with 60 patients operated using a conventional posterior approach. Clinical evaluation was performed by the Harris score, Merle d'Aubigné score, reduced Western Ontario and McMasters Universities (WOMAC), Short-Form 12 (SF12), IHOT-ADV and IHOT-12 questionnaires. Radiological evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: Preoperatively, no significant differences were detected between cohorts. Skin-to-skin operation time and blood loss was higher in the SuperPath cohort. Length of stay was similar between cohorts. Clinical evaluation improved significantly from the preoperative values to the 1-year follow-up. At 3 months the SuperPath cohort showed better results for IHOT-12, and at 12 months for SF. Radiologically, there were no differences between cohorts. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized study reveals that the learning curve for the SuperPath approach provides similar outcomes to the conventional posterior approach within the first year after surgery. The Superpath approach was associated with longer skin-to-skin operation time, and greater blood loss.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no current consensus on the most suitable hip approach. However, there is a trend to reduce damage to soft tissue, which may have an influence on early outcomes. The SuperPath approach accesses the capsule maintaining integrity of the external rotators. The purpose of this study was to compare the SuperPath approach with the conventional posterior approach, in terms of early outcomes and radiological results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 30 patients operated using the SuperPath approach was prospectively matched for age, gender, body mass index and hip function with 60 patients operated using a conventional posterior approach. Clinical evaluation was performed by the Harris score, Merle d'Aubigné score, reduced Western Ontario and McMasters Universities (WOMAC), Short-Form 12 (SF12), IHOT-ADV and IHOT-12 questionnaires. Radiological evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: Preoperatively, no significant differences were detected between cohorts. Skin-to-skin operation time and blood loss was higher in the SuperPath cohort. Length of stay was similar between cohorts. Clinical evaluation improved significantly from the preoperative values to the 1-year follow-up. At 3 months the SuperPath cohort showed better results for IHOT-12, and at 12 months for SF. Radiologically, there were no differences between cohorts. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized study reveals that the learning curve for the SuperPath approach provides similar outcomes to the conventional posterior approach within the first year after surgery. The Superpath approach was associated with longer skin-to-skin operation time, and greater blood loss.