IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0037947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches and Traditional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Radiological and Complications Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Baohui Yang
  • Haopeng Li
  • Xijing He
  • Guoyu Wang
  • Siyue Xu

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty (MITHA) remains considerably controversial. Limited visibility and prosthesis malposition increase the risk of post-surgical complications compared to those of the traditional method. Methods: A meta-analysis was undertaken of all published databases up to May 2011. The studies were divided into four subgroups according to the surgical approach taken. The radiological outcomes and complications of minimally invasive surgery were compared to traditional total hip arthroplasty (TTHA) using risk ratio, mean difference, and standardized mean difference statistics. Results: In five studies involving the posterolateral approach, no significant differences were found between the MITHA groups and the TTHA groups in the acetabular cup abduction angle (p = 0.41), acetabular anteversion (p = 0.96), and femoral prosthesis position (p = 0.83). However, the femoral offset was significantly increased (WMD = 3.00; 95% CI, 0.40–5.60; p = 0.02). Additionally, there were no significant differences among the complications in both the groups (dislocations, nerve injury, infection, deep vein thrombosis, proximal femoral fracture) and revision rate (p>0.05). In three studies involving the posterior approach, there were no significant differences in radiological outcomes or all other complications between MITHA or TTHA groups (p>0.05). Three studies involved anterolateral approach, while 2 studies used the lateral approach. However, the information from imaging and complications was not adequate for statistical analysis. Conclusions: Posterior MITHA seems to be a safe surgical procedure, without the increased risk of post-operative complication rates and component malposition rates. The posterolateral approach THA may lead to increased femoral offset. The current data are not enough to reach a positive conclusion that lateral and anterolateral approaches will result in increased risks of adverse effects and complications at the prosthesis site.

Suggested Citation

  • Baohui Yang & Haopeng Li & Xijing He & Guoyu Wang & Siyue Xu, 2012. "Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches and Traditional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Radiological and Complications Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-7, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037947
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037947
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037947&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0037947?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chang-Peng Xu & Xue Li & Jin-Qi Song & Zhuang Cui & Bin Yu, 2013. "Mini-Incision versus Standard Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty Regarding Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.