Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of minimally invasive approach versus conventional anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

It is a general belief among hip surgeons that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach for implantation of a total hip arthroplasty (THA) allows an improved and faster postoperative rehabilitation because of reduced muscle and soft-tissue damage, less postoperative pain and blood loss, and shorter hospital stay compared with conventional approaches. In the published relative literature though, there are controversial reports and debates on this matter. To our knowledge, there is no study on the medium-term functional results comparing MIS and traditional approaches for total hip replacement. The purpose of this prospective comparative controlled study was to compare MIS with conventional approach, on terms of pain, blood loss, and functional recovery over a follow-up period of 4 years.

Methods

In a total of 90 consecutive randomly selected adult patients, who suffered from unilateral primary hip osteoarthritis, a cementless Zweymüller-Plus THA (SL-Plus stem, Bicon screw socket) was implanted by a single senior orthopedic hip surgeon in one institution in the same period. Forty-five patients (group A) were operated using an MIS anterolateral, short incision, muscle-sparing approach and 45 (group B) with a conventional (anterolateral modified Watson-Jones) approach under partial detachment of gluteus medius and minimus. Anthropometric data, blood loss, short-form 36 questionnaire, visual analog scale pain score, and walking endurance were included in the analysis. Approach-related surgical complications (trochanter major fracture, Bicon malposition) were recorded. Data were collected postoperatively and at 4-year follow-up.

Results

Two patients of group A and eight patients of group B were excluded from the final analysis. Thus, 80 patients were eligible for the final evaluation 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative pain score was less in the MIS group. However, no differences in perioperative blood loss, functional outcome, and walking endurance were shown between groups. No difference in Bicon cup implantation angle was measured in postoperative roentgenograms between group A and B patients, no intraoperative trochanter fracture occurred in any patient of both groups.

Conclusions

The present prospective randomized study revealed no significant mid-term clinical and functional benefit for patients who underwent a THA through an MIS in comparison with those who were managed with a conventional open approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin JV, Schurman DJ (2004) Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(7):1353–1358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldstein WM, Branson JJ, Berland KA, Gordon AC (2003) Minimal-incision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(Suppl 4):33–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Howell JR, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (2004) Minimally invasive hip replacement: rationale, applied anatomy, and instrumentation. Orthop Clin North Am 35:107–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berry DJ, Berger RA, Callaghan JJ, Dorr LD, Duwelius PJ et al (2003) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Development, early results, and a critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(11):2235–2246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng T, Feng JG, Liu T, Zhang XL (2009) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop 33:1473–1481

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP (2005) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett D, Ogonda L, Elliot D, Humphreys L, Lawlor M, Beverland D (2007) Comparison of immediate postoperative walking ability in patients receiving minimally invasive and standard incision hip arthroplasty: a prospective blinded study. J Arthroplasty 22:490–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim YH (2006) Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. J Arthroplasty 21:1092–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O’Brien S, Beverland D (2005) A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:701–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pospischill M, Kranzl A, Attwenger B, Knahr K (2010) Minimally invasive compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty. A comparative gait analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:328–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Müller M, Tohtz S, Springer I, Dewey M, Perka C (2011) Randomized controlled trial of abductor muscle damage in relation to the surgical approach for primary total hip replacement: minimally invasive anterolateral versus modified direct lateral approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:179–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bertin KC, Röttinger H (2004) Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery. A modified Watson-Jones approach. Clin Orthop 429:248–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakamura S, Matsuda K, Arai N, Wakimoto N, Matsushita T (2004) Mini-incision posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28:214–217

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sculco TP (2004) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 19(4 suppl 1):78–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goosen JH, Kollen BJ, Castelein RM, Kuipers BM, Verheyen CC (2011) Minimally invasive versus classic procedures in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):200–208

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DiGioia AM, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Jaramaz B (2003) Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 18:123–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawlor M, Humphreys P, Morrow E, Ogonda L, Bennett D, Elliott D et al (2005) Comparison of early postoperative functional levels following total hip replacement using minimally invasive versus standard incisions. A prospective randomized blinded trial. Clin Rehabil 19:465–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB (2011) Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop 35(2):173–184

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wohlrab D, Hagel A, Hein W (2004) Advantages of minimally invasive total hip replacement in the early phase of rehabilitation. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142(6):685–690 (in German)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Murphy SB, Tannast M (2006) Conventional vs minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study of rehabilitation and complications. Orthopade 35(761–764):766–768 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mazoochian F, Weber P, Schramm S, Utzschneider S, Fottner A, Jansson V (2009) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled prospective trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(12):1633–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goebel S, Steinert AF, Schillinger J, Eulert J, Broscheit J, Rudert M, Nöth U (2012) Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop 36(3):491–498

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ilchmann T, Gersbach S, Zwicky L, Clauss M (2013) Standard transgluteal versus minimal invasive anterior approach in hip arthroplasty: a prospective, Consecutive Cohort Study. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5(4):e31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dorr LD, Maheshwari AV, Long WT, Wan Z, Sirianni LE (2007) Early pain relief and function after posterior minimally invasive and conventional total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1153–1160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lux EA, Stamer U, Meissner W, Moser K, Neugebauer E, Wiebalck A (2008) Postoperative pain after ambulatory surgery. Schmerz 22:171–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Landgraeber S, Quitmann H, Güth S, Haversath M, Kowalczyk W, Kecskeméthy A, Heep H, Jäger M (2013) A prospective randomized peri- and post-operative comparison of the minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the lateral approach. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5(3):e19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spaans AJ, van den Hout JA, Bolder SB (2012) High complication rate in the early experience of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach. Acta Orthop 83(4):342–346

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang B, Li H, He X, Wang G, Xu S (2012) Minimally invasive surgical approaches and traditional total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of radiological and complications outcomes. PLoS One 7(5):e37947 Epub 2012 May 24

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, General Hospital “Agios Andreas”, Tsertidou 1, 26335, Patras, Greece

    T. Repantis, T. Bouras & P. Korovessis

Authors
  1. T. Repantis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Bouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Korovessis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Korovessis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Repantis, T., Bouras, T. & Korovessis, P. Comparison of minimally invasive approach versus conventional anterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25, 111–116 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1428-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1428-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation