There was no major difference in the rate of complications .
Conclusions Short-term recovery favors limited incision over st and ard incision THA .
Background The literature comparing  limited incision and st and ard incision THAs  is confusing regarding whether limited incision THA improves short-term recovery without compromising long-term durability and survival .
Further , previously published meta-analyses can not conclude that limited incision THA is better .
With new data , we seek to discover if the answers now exist .
Purpose We used meta- analysis to compare surgical and hospitalization data , clinical outcomes , and complication rates , and thus ( 1 ) confirm whether limited incision THA is at least comparable to st and ard incision THA ; and ( 2 ) determine whether limited incision THA is an improvement over st and ard incision THA .
Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled prospective trial
Introduction Advantages of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty ( THA )  are controversially discussed . Method In this prospect i ve study 51 patients ( 52 hips ) were r and omly allocated to a classical lateral or a minimally invasive approach ( modification of the Hardinge-approach ) . Operating time , intraoperative blood loss , postoperative hemoglobin , muscle enzymes CK and myoglobin were recorded . Radiologically the positioning of the prosthesis was analyzed . WOMAC- and Harris Hip Score ( HHS ) were assessed preoperatively , at discharge , at 6 weeks and 3 months . Results In the minimally invasive group there was a shorter length of surgery , the scores in the WOMAC and HHS were slightly better at discharge and at the 3 months- examination , myoglobin-rise was slightly less . The positioning of the prosthesis was good in both groups . Minimally invasive THA led to a quicker recovery , at 3 months postoperative there was still a slight difference to the st and ard group . Conclusion If these slight differences subside has to be examined in studies with a longer follow-up
There was no major difference in the rate of complications .
Conclusions Short-term recovery favors limited incision over st and ard incision THA .
Background The literature comparing  limited incision and st and ard incision THAs  is confusing regarding whether limited incision THA improves short-term recovery without compromising long-term durability and survival .
Further , previously published meta-analyses can not conclude that limited incision THA is better .
With new data , we seek to discover if the answers now exist .
Purpose We used meta- analysis to compare surgical and hospitalization data , clinical outcomes , and complication rates , and thus ( 1 ) confirm whether limited incision THA is at least comparable to st and ard incision THA ; and ( 2 ) determine whether limited incision THA is an improvement over st and ard incision THA .