↓ Skip to main content

The design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of the posterolateral versus the direct anterior approach for THA (POLADA – trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of the posterolateral versus the direct anterior approach for THA (POLADA – trial)
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1322-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Rykov, I. H. F. Reininga, B. A. S. Knobben, M. S. Sietsma, B. L. E. F. ten Have

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures. Because of the increasing number of THAs, a growing demand for faster recovery and a greater emphasis on cost-effectiveness, minimally invasive THAs have been introduced in the last decades. The direct anterior approach is a minimally invasive, tissue-sparing approach in which intermuscular planes are used. Theoretically, this approach should result in a faster recovery of physical functioning and higher health-related quality of life. A randomised controlled trial will be performed. Patients will be randomly allocated to undergo THA by means of the anterior or posterolateral approach. Both the intervention and control group will consist of two subgroups: 1) patients with a good bone stock who will receive an uncemented femoral stem, and 2) patients with a poor bone stock who will receive a cemented femoral stem. Patients between 18 and 90 years with primary or secondary osteoarthritis will be included. Physical functioning and health-related quality of life will be assessed by means of questionnaires. Additionally, performance based tests will be performed to objectively assess the physical functioning. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed by obtaining data on medical costs in and outside the hospital and other nonmedical costs. Measurements will take place preoperatively, two and six weeks, three months and one year postoperatively. There is some evidence that the anterior approach results in reduced tissue damage and faster recovery in the direct postoperative period, compared to the posterolateral approach. However, there is still a lack of well-designed studies that have confirmed the better outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the anterior approach. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the physical functioning, health related quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the anterior approach, compared to the conventional posterolateral approach. Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5343 (registration date April 12, 2015).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Other 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 43 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 47 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,139
of 4,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,255
of 306,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#40
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.