Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hip replacement has been utilized in some hospitals. However, the incision size and location are different.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical experience and clinical outcome between minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty (THA) and conventional THA.
METHODS: A total of 30 cases (30 hips) underwent THA through a minimal incision posterolateral surgical approach (MIS group) and another 30 cases received THA through a standard posterolateral approach at the same period (standard group). The age, gender and body mass index between two groups were similar (P > 0.05), and their disease spectrum was similar. They were treated by cementless prosthesis (Smith &Nephew Company). The operation time, blood loss, incision length, functional recovery, and prosthetic position were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in average incision length, amount of bleeding, postoperative drainage and transfusion between two groups (P < 0.05), and the MIS group was superior to the standard group. There were no significant differences in operation time, postoperative imaging evaluation and acetabular angle between two groups (P > 0.05). Functional recovery of MIS group was rapid than standard group at the early stage, but the functions of joint were similar in middle-stage in both groups. Follow-up period after operation, the prosthesis position was good both in MIS and standard groups. There was no complication in MIS group with the exception of skin abrasin in two cases. The advantages of MIS THA are less traumatic blood loss, good cosmetic incision and rapid recovery of function. The MIS THA can only be used by surgeons rich in experience in THA and in hospitals provided with necessary instruments.