BACKGROUND: Our working hypothesis was that minimally invasive surgery was superior to conventional surgery for total hip arthroplasty procedure. We compared THR results in the minimally invasive posterior approach with THR results in the conventional posterior approach. METHODS: Prospective, randomised trial. Fifty patients were selected and then divided into two groups based on treatment (minimally invasive posterior approach or conventional posterior approach). DATA COLLECTED: Perioperative bleeding, postoperative pain, time of recovery, component orientation, complications and functional results. One year follow-up. RESULTS: No differences were found in blood loss, surgical time, component orientation, rate of complications or functional result. The minimally invasive lateral approach produced less postoperative pain and a faster recovery, with a shorter hospital stay and earlier walking-start, and a positive economic impact with 5% of the total process cost saved. CONCLUSIONS:Minimally invasive surgery permits less postoperative pain, faster recovery and a positive economic saving, without differences in the rest of the items studied.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Our working hypothesis was that minimally invasive surgery was superior to conventional surgery for total hip arthroplasty procedure. We compared THR results in the minimally invasive posterior approach with THR results in the conventional posterior approach. METHODS: Prospective, randomised trial. Fifty patients were selected and then divided into two groups based on treatment (minimally invasive posterior approach or conventional posterior approach). DATA COLLECTED: Perioperative bleeding, postoperative pain, time of recovery, component orientation, complications and functional results. One year follow-up. RESULTS: No differences were found in blood loss, surgical time, component orientation, rate of complications or functional result. The minimally invasive lateral approach produced less postoperative pain and a faster recovery, with a shorter hospital stay and earlier walking-start, and a positive economic impact with 5% of the total process cost saved. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery permits less postoperative pain, faster recovery and a positive economic saving, without differences in the rest of the items studied.