Compared with st and ard total hip replacement , mini-incision procedures may have small perioperative advantages in terms of less blood loss , shorter operative time , and shorter inpatient stay , but the differences were not clinical ly important .
Few complications were reported , and the complication rate did not differ significantly between groups .
There was insufficient evidence to suggest any major difference in the short-term revision rate , and confidence intervals for surrogate measures for long-term outcome were broad enough to include clinical ly important differences in favor of either approach .
Although there were marginal short-term advantages and disadvantages for each of the surgical techniques , there was no strong evidence either for or against mini-incision compared with st and ard-incision total hip replacement .
Importantly , evidence on longer-term performance , especially the risk of revision arthroplasty , for mini-incision hip arthroplasty is very limited
BACKGROUND Mini-incision total hip replacement continues the current trend in orthopaedics and other specialties toward smaller-incision surgery .
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single mini-incision compared with st and ard-incision total hip replacement for treatment of arthritis of the hip .
Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive lateral approach--our experience and early results.
BACKGROUND AIMS Evaluation of : 1 . early clinical and radiographic results of  total hip arthroplasty ( THA ) through a st and ard lateral direct approach , 2 . early clinical and radiographic results of THA through a minimal lateral approach , 3 . comparison of the results of THA in these two groups . MATERIAL AND METHODS 120 THAs ( 60 cementless and 60 cemented ) done in 120 patients due to degenerative changes were evaluated prospect ively . 60 THAs were done through a minimal lateral approach and constituted a study group . 60 THAs were done through a direct lateral approach and constituted a control group . The mean age of the 120 patients ( 98 women and 22 men ) was 45 y.o . ( range : 32 - 67 y.o . ) . The duration of follow-up in the study group was from 6 to 12 months ( mean : 8.5 months ) . The duration of follow-up in the control group was from 10 to 16 months ( mean : 10.5 months ) . Mean preoperative functional status of the study group was 44.5 points according to the Harris hip score . Radiographic evaluation of the results was done according to the criteria of the Joint Committee of the Hip Society , AAOS and SICOT . RESULTS 6 months after THA , clinical results were 92 pts in the study group and 88 pts in the control group . Radiographic outcomes were very good in all 120 patients from both arms : there were no differences between the control and study group . The incidence of complications was similar in both groups . CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive THA demonstrated its value in the treatment of  degenerative changes of the hip joint  with regard to short-term outcomes . The clinical and radiographic outcomes were comparable between the st and ard and minimally invasive approaches . Success with THA using a minimally invasive approach depends on excellent operative technique and experience with st and ard hip approaches rather than on the use of special instruments
Compared with st and ard total hip replacement , mini-incision procedures may have small perioperative advantages in terms of less blood loss , shorter operative time , and shorter inpatient stay , but the differences were not clinical ly important .
Few complications were reported , and the complication rate did not differ significantly between groups .
There was insufficient evidence to suggest any major difference in the short-term revision rate , and confidence intervals for surrogate measures for long-term outcome were broad enough to include clinical ly important differences in favor of either approach .
Although there were marginal short-term advantages and disadvantages for each of the surgical techniques , there was no strong evidence either for or against mini-incision compared with st and ard-incision total hip replacement .
Importantly , evidence on longer-term performance , especially the risk of revision arthroplasty , for mini-incision hip arthroplasty is very limited
BACKGROUND Mini-incision total hip replacement continues the current trend in orthopaedics and other specialties toward smaller-incision surgery .
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single mini-incision compared with st and ard-incision total hip replacement for treatment of arthritis of the hip .