A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty

James R Berstock, Ashley W Blom, Andrew D Beswick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The mini-incision posterior approach may appeal to surgeons comfortable with the standard posterior approach to the hip. We present the first systematic review and meta-analysis of these two approaches. Twelve randomised controlled trials and four non-randomised trials comprising of 1498 total hip arthroplasties were included. The mini-incision posterior approach was associated with an early improvement in Harris hip score of 1.8 points (P<0.001), reduced operating time (5minutes, P<0.001), length of hospital stay (14hours, P<0.001), intraoperative and total blood loss (63ml, P<0.001 and 119ml, P<0.001 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of dislocation, nerve injury, infection or venous thromboembolic events. The minimally invasive posterior approach appears to provide a safe and acceptable alternative to the standard incision posterior approach.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1970-82
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Arthroplasty
Volume29
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2014

Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

Keywords

  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
  • Humans
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Treatment Outcome

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this