Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Hip Versus Standard Approach

Overview

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference in terms of length of hospital stay and post-operative outcomes between patients whose total hip replacement surgery is performed with a minimally invasive versus standard surgical approach.

Traditional techniques for total hip arthroplasty (THA) require complete visualization of the acetabulum and proximal femur since anatomic landmarks are crucial for correct orientation of the prosthetic components. All surgeons are taught that a wide surgical exposure is one of the most important factors in performing successful THA. Traditionally, it was impossible to achieve accurate fixation and orientation of the components without complete visualization of bony landmarks. These extensile exposures facilitate accurate implant alignment, but at the expense of more extensive soft tissue dissection. Little clinical research has been undertaken to relate the surgical approach to postoperative complications or patient function. Furthermore, despite the good overall results of THA, the recovery time to improved function can be lengthy. Blood loss is expected to be directly related to the extent of the surgical exposure and to influence patients outcomes. Based upon these facts, an important principle of arthroplasty surgery is to minimize the amount of soft tissue trauma while being able to achieve the surgical goal of reconstructing the arthritic hip joint. By definition, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures result in less soft tissue disruption, which in turn should reduce pain, expedite healing, decrease recovery time, and potentially reduce the number of associated complications.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Outcomes