Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (35): 6503-6507.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2012.35.009

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Meta analysis on the minimally invasive incision versus conventional incision for total hip arthroplast

Chen Chang-liu, Shu Yong   

  1. Third Department of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China
  • Received:2012-01-11 Revised:2012-02-17 Online:2012-08-26 Published:2012-08-26
  • Contact: Shu Yong, Master, Chief physician, Third Department of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China shuyong57@163.com
  • About author:Chen Chang-liu★, Studying for master’s degree, Third Department of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China jude_515@sina.com

PDF

589

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive incision has a good short-term effect on total hip arthroplasty, but some scholars believe that minimally invasive incision has a poor intraoperative exposure than the traditional incision, and has the complications of poor placement of the prosthesis after replacement.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of minimally invasive incision versus conventional incision for total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS: A computer-based online search of PubMed database and Ovid database was performed for the articles on minimally invasive incision for total hip arthroplasty published from 1975-2011, the randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive incision versus conventional incision for total hip arthroplasty were collected and the quality was individually evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration standards. The Meta analysis was performed on the articles that met the inclusion criteria by RevMan 5.0 software.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A total of 14 related papers were included, Meta analysis indicated that minimally invasive incision for total hip arthroplasty could reduce the duration of operation, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, and the amount of total blood loss when compared with conventional incision, but the rate of complications had no difference. As for the aspect of hip function after total hip arthroplasty, the Harris score of minimally invasive incision was better than that of the conventional incision within one year. The hip function was better in the minimally invasive incision for less blood loss, duration of operation, hospital stay and less on-bed time.

CLC Number: