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 compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparative gait analysis.
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty is purported to allow an improved and faster rehabilitation in the immediate postoperative period because of reduced soft-tissue damage compared with total hip arthroplasty performed with use of a st and ard approach . In the present study , a minimally invasive approach was compared with a traditional st and ard approach in terms of the effect on gait kinematics as demonstrated with gait analysis and electromyography . METHODS Twenty r and omized patients who underwent a primary total hip replacement with use of a minimally invasive modified Watson-Jones approach ( minimally invasive group ) were compared with a group of twenty patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty with use of a st and ard transgluteal Hardinge approach ( st and ard group ) . All patients received the same cementless implant , inserted with use of st and ard instruments , and all operations were performed by a single , experienced surgeon . The patients were evaluated with use of three-dimensional gait analysis and dynamic electromyograms at three time points : preoperatively , ten days postoperatively , and twelve weeks postoperatively . Temporospatial and joint-kinematic parameters were evaluated . RESULTS There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the temporospatial variables of velocity , cadence , step length , and stride length at any tested time point . With regard to the range of motion of the operatively treated hip , the minimally invasive group had a smaller decrease at the ten-day time point in comparison with the st and ard group . However , this finding was not significant . The reduction in the range of motion was mainly caused by reduced hip extension . A compensatory increase in the pelvic tilt was observed in both groups . One patient in the st and ard group showed a positive Trendelenburg gait ten days postoperatively ; it had disappeared completely at the twelve-week time point . CONCLUSIONS With regard to gait kinematics in the early postoperative period ( three months ) , the present study showed no significant benefit for patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive Watson-Jones approach in comparison with those who were managed with a st and ard transgluteal approach
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 .