Background: Despite increasing adoption of the direct anterior (DA) approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA), uncertainty persists regarding its outcomes beyond the 1-year mark in comparison to other approaches. We used the reverse fragility index (RFI) to evaluate the robustness of reported findings in the literature.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing implant revision rates between DA and other approaches in THA, defined as all those different from DA. Our primary outcome was the RFI, which gauges the number of events needed for a nonsignificant result to become significant, in the revision rate between DA and other approaches. We also calculated the reverse fragility quotient by dividing the RFI by each study's sample size. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were displayed.
Results: A total of 10 RCTs with a total of 971 patients were included. The median RFI was 5 (IQR, 4 to 5), indicating the study's results would be statistically significant if the outcomes of 5 patients in 1 treatment arm were reversed. The median reverse fragility quotient was 0.049 (IQR, 0.04 to 0.057), indicating that a change of outcome in 4.9% of patients would render the revision rate significant. The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 4 (IQR, 0 to 7). Of the 10 RCTs, 6 had more patients lost to follow-up than their respective RFI values.
Conclusions: Notable fragility was evidenced in most studies comparing DA to other approaches for THA. Surgeons should not solely rely on the P value to determine clinical significance and instead use multiple metrics.
Level of evidence: II.
Keywords: level of evidence; randomized controlled trial; reverse fragility; statistics; systematic review; total hip arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.