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 .
Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study.
The purpose of this prospect i ve r and omized study was to compare the early results of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a st and ard technique . A consecutive series of 70 patients who underwent primary bilateral simultaneous total hip arthroplasties was studied . All procedures were performed through a posterolateral approach . Operative times and duration of hemovac drains were significantly shorter in the group with a minimally invasive technique ( P < .05 ) . However , there was a risk of infection when using this technique . There were no any late transfusions in any of our patients postdischarge . This minimally invasive technique did not offer any advantages because the results were not different , and in our h and s , it increased our infection rate
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 .