Abstract
Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a short skin incision is a subject of much debate in the literature. The present study estimates the possible minimal length of the exposure in an unselected patient cohort and compares the lateral mini-incision technique and traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA). One hundred and two patients were divided into three groups according to the type of surgery and length of incision: mini-incision (less than 10 cm) was performed in 38 patients; midi-incision (10-14 cm) in 43; and standard-incision (longer than 14 cm) in 21 patients. No statistical difference was found with regard to intraoperative and total blood loss, the rate of complications, and postoperative recovery. Significantly decreased body mass index (BMI), shorter operative time, and higher number of hips with malpositioning of the acetabular cup were found in the mini-incision group. These patients, however, experienced less pain in the early postoperative period and were highly satisfied with the cosmetic results. The length of incision was shortened and optimized (less than 14 cm) in 82% of patients, and mini-incision was performed in 38 patients of this unselected cohort. Because of the understandable demand of the patients for less invasive intervention, the surgeon should use a smaller but not necessarily mini-incision with minimal soft tissue trauma that still allows him to perform the procedure well, without compromising the type of implants and the otherwise excellent long-term results. Randomized prospective studies are needed to explore the real value of the minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty.