Evaluation of minimally invasive versus conventional total hip replacement

Awad, Ahmed Khairy Mahmoud; Tammam, Hamdy; Said, Elsayed; Refae, Hesham Hamed

doi:10.21608/svuijm.2021.83252.1195

Evaluation of minimally invasive versus conventional total hip replacement

Document Type : Original research articles

Authors

¹ Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena,83523, Qena Governorate, Egypt

² Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Aswan University, Aswan City, Aswan Governorate, Egypt

10.21608/svuijm.2021.83252.1195

Abstract

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) is considered a low-risk and efficient procedure, to improve pain and disability not exposing patients to significant risk burden. Minimally invasive (MIS) approaches of THR are not only desired to add more benefits but also shouldn`t compromise the already accomplished long-term results.
Objectives: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the surgical outcome of minimally invasive versus conventional approach total hip arthroplasty.
Patients and methods: This study was performed through a prospective; study comparing two patient groups containing 30 patients who had1^ry hip replacement (THA) during the period from March 2018 to May 2020 at Qena University Hospital, fifteen of them undergone 1^ry THA utilizing conventional approach and the other fifteen patients undergone 1^ryTHA utilizing mini-invasive approaches.
Results: In Conventional THA group (group-A) nine males and six females were included with a mean age (± SD) of 57.2 ± 4.3 years; ranging (50-65 years). Preoperative HHS in-group-A patients ranged 20.3 – 37.1 (mean 26.8 ± 4.7). In Minimally invasive THA group (group-B) eight males and seven females were included with a mean age (± SD) of 57.7 ± 5.1 years; ranging (49-66 years).Preoperative HHS in group-B patients ranged 20.5 – 48.8 (mean 31.1 ± 8.0).The post-operative HHS were 89.56 ±6.11 and 91.94 ±1.91 in the group-A and group-B respectively, no statistically significant variation regarding the mean values was discovered between the two groups. The mean time to resume work in the group-A was 6.87 ±2.23 weeks compared to 5.67 ±1.39 weeks in the group-B with a significant statistical increase regarding group-A.
Conclusion: MIS approaches are advantageous in the terms of hospitalization and time to return to work.

Keywords

Main Subjects