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 with anterior incision].
OBJECTIVE To report the clinical outcome of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty  with anterior incision . METHODS One hundred and twenty cases were r and omly divided into two groups . Sixty cases ( group 1 ) who had undergone a mini-invasive THA  were compared with 60 cases ( group 2 ) who had undergone THA with st and ard posterolateral incision .  The operation time , length of incision , blood loss , anteversion angle of acetabulum cup , Harris score and complications were observed . RESULT The average operation time was almost the same ; The average length of incision for group 1 was 7.9 cm ( 7.4 - 9.0 cm ) and 16.3 cm ( 14 - 22 cm ) for group 2 ( P < 0.01 ) . The average blood loss for group 1 was 350 ml ( 250 - 530 ml ) and 650 ml ( 400 - 1200 ml ) for group 2 , there was significant difference between two groups ( P < 0.05 ) . According to the postoperative X-ray , the mean anteversion angles of cup were 24 degrees ( 19 degrees - 27 degrees ) for group 1 and 19 degrees ( 15 degrees - 22 degrees ) for group 2 . The average length of post-operative hospital stay was 7 days ( 5 - 8 days ) in group 1 and 13.5 days ( 12 - 16 days ) in group 2 ( P < 0.05 ) . The Harris score of group 1 was 91.4 ( 67 - 94 ) and 78.5 ( 67 - 91 ) for group 2 at the 3 month follow-up ( P < 0.05 ) . At the last follow up , there were no significant difference ( P > 0.05 ) , but the average ROM of group 1 were definitely more greater than that of group 2 ( 110.0 degrees + /- 3.2 degrees vs. 90.0 degrees + /- 2.9 degrees P < 0.05 ) . There was 1 case of cup reinsertion in group 1 because of large anteversion angle ; 2 cases of symptomatic DVT and 1 case of lethargy because of cerebral infa rct ion happened in group 2 . CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using anterior approach is a safe and effective technique with the advantages of less soft tissue damage and less blood loss
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 .