Which is more invasive—mini versus standard incisions in total hip arthroplasty?

Abstract

In this study, interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and haemoglobin levels were evaluated to compare the degree of surgical invasion between mini and standard incisions in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Sixtytwo patients admitted for primary cementless THA were enrolled in this randomised study. The patients were allocated to have surgery through either a mini incision of <10 cm or a standard incision of 15 cm. In each group, inflammatory responses were evaluated by IL-6, CRP, and haemoglobin levels before operation and one day after operation. Significant differences were not found in IL-

The mini postero-postero-lateral mini incision in total hip arthroplasty

“…In a study of 261 patients Dorr showed immediate postoperative improvements of the Harris hip score that did not last past the first six weeks [18]. Shitama et al [21] and Nakamura et al [22] showed the same conclusion after six months and DiGioia [23] one year after surgery. Flören et al [24] showed that the minimal invasive posterior incision had the same clinical and radiological results as the standard techniques in 90 patients after ten to 13 years.…”

Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach

“…In their study, a 10-cm incision was compared to a 16-cm skin incision while further soft tissue dissection was similar [18]. However, changing the size of the skin incision has no significant impact on main mediators of inflammation and response to trauma [25]. DiGioia et al also found no difference between a minimally invasive and a standard posterior approach in 66 patients in terms of postoperative pain levels.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes

“…In this instance we included both papers but only analysed the data for each outcome measure once. One study presented the results of two separate surgical approaches using MIS and conventional exposures; both were included in separate analyses [20].…”