Abstract:

BACKGROUND: At present, the controversy on minimally incision total hip arthroplasty is mainly on the wild limitation of small incision, the occurrence of femoral neck fracture, nerve injury and poor prosthetic position as well as the impact of surgery long-term efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of minimal incision and conventional incision for total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS: We searched and collected the randomized controlled trials of minimal incision and conventional incision for total hip arthroplasty. The quality of the included studies was critically assessed and the relative data were extracted. Meta analysis was performed with the statistical software Revman 5.1.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Ten randomized controlled trials and 1 001 hips were included. The results of system evaluation showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of iatrogenic nerve injury, the cup abduction angle, the stem alignment (varus/valgus), the rate of hip dislocation and the rate of reoperation between minimally incision and conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty. Subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of cup abduction angle, the rate of hip dislocation and the rate of reoperation, and there was no significant difference of hip dislocation rate between posterolateral approach minimally incision and conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty. The curative effect of the minimal incision and conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty is equivalent.