Short-term Results of SuperPATH Versus Direct Lateral Approach In Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Study.

NCT07633925 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: ORTHO-2026-015
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 100
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown great success in relieving joint pain and disability and has been a procedure of choice for the treatment of end-stage degenerative joint diseases and trauma. There are multiple surgical approaches for THA, including the traditional posterior approach, anterior approach, lateral approach, anterolateral approach and posterolateral approach; each has its advantages and complications. Modified direct lateral approach is considered as standard, most commonly used and familiar in Assiut university Arthroplasty centre. Yet it may cause abductor weakness, post operative pain, prolonged rehabilitation time and more blood loss. In the past two decades, the group of micro-posterior approaches was introduced. In 2004 Stephen Murphy developed the Supecapsular (SuperCap) approach, preparing the hip insitu to reduce soft tissue traumatization caused by the dislocation manoeuvre used in the conventional posterior approach. , In 2008 Brad Penenberg developed the percutaneously-assisted total hip (PATH) app, a tissue-sparing approach leading through the interval between gluteus medius and the conjoined tendon of the external rotators. In2011, James Chow described the supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPATH) approach, the most Important features of SuperPATH are the following: (a) muscle sparing between gluteus medius and piriformis without detaching external rotator tendons or disrupting the hip capsule, (b) femur preparation first without dislocation (c) percutaneous acetabular preparation. SuperPATH approach is designed to reduce soft tissue trauma and so blood loss, post operative pain, improve joint stability and allow earlier mobilization of patients. Despite the theoretical advantages of the SuperPATH approach, its adoption remains limited compared with conventional surgical approaches. Furthermore, there is ongoing debate regarding its clinical superiority in terms of functional outcomes, complication rates and implant position. Aim of our study is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of total hip arthroplasty performed using SuperPATH compared to modified direct lateral approach.

Conditions

Compare Two Surgical Approaches Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Keywords

SuperPATH, total hip arthroplasty

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Harris hip score

  Immediately post operative 3 months 6 months One year Two years

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Oxford hip score

  Immediately post operative 3 months 6 months One year Two years

• Visual analogue score

  Immediately post operative 3 months 6 months One year Two years

• Operative time in minutes

  Duration of the operation

Study Arms (2)

Direct lateral approach

EXPERIMENTAL

total hip arthroplasty via direct lateral approach

Procedure: Surgical approaches: direct lateral approach for the hip and SuperPATH approach

SuperPATH

EXPERIMENTAL

This arm will include patients who will undergo total hip arthroplasty via SuperPATH approach

Procedure: Surgical approaches: direct lateral approach for the hip and SuperPATH approach

Interventions

Surgical approaches: direct lateral approach for the hip and SuperPATH approach PROCEDURE

Direct lateral approach is approach through the intra muscular septum of gluteus medial muscle SuperPATH approach is minimally invasive posterolateral approach for the hip

Direct lateral approach; SuperPATH

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Primary total hip arthroplasty.
• Age \> 18 years.
• Body mass index \< 40 kg/m2.
• Able to ambulate preoperative.

You may not qualify if:

• Hip deformity (acetabular or femoral).
• Ankylosed hips.
• Severe osteoporosis.
• Neuromuscular disorders.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Assiut University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Assiut University hospital

Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt

Location

Central Study Contacts

Islam Mohamed Abd el hameed, Assistant lecturer

CONTACT

0201016329653; islammohamed846@yahoo.com

Mohamed Mostafa Alaa eldin and el aziz, Assistant professor

CONTACT

0201096967747; Mohamed.m.alaa@aun.edu.eg

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: Radomization will be preoperative for patients But the patient who do the operation and the surgeon will know the approach that will be used Outcome assessor will be masked
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant lecturer

Model Details: We will divide population into two groups One group for direct lateral approach and the other for SuperPATH approach

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: May 30, 2026
• First Posted: June 8, 2026
• Study Start (Estimated): July 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): July 1, 2028
• Study Completion (Estimated): July 1, 2029
• Last Updated: June 8, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-06

Locations

EG (1)