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 .
Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study.
Patients without prior hip surgery and body mass index lower than 30 undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were eligible to participate in a r and omized prospect i ve study comparing a minimally invasive with a st and ard approach . The patients were r and omized  to receive incisions  of 8 cm ( group A , n = 28 ) or 15 cm ( group B , n = 32 ) . The groups were similar demographically . Patients in group A had significantly less intraoperative blood loss ( P < .003 ) and less total blood loss ( P < .009 ) . Fewer patients in group A limped at 6 weeks ( P < .04 ) . Operative time , transfusion requirements , narcotic usage , length of hospital stay , achievement of rehabilitation milestones , cane usage , and complications were similar in both groups . There was no difference between the groups at 1- and 2-year follow-up . Compared with a st and ard incision , patients who underwent a minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty demonstrated decreased blood loss and limped less at 6-week follow-up
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 .