Single mini-incision total hip replacement for the management of arthritic disease of the hip: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND Mini-incision total hip replacement continues the current trend in orthopaedics and other specialties toward smaller-incision surgery. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single mini-incision compared with standard-incision total hip replacement for treatment of arthritis of the hip. METHODS We conducted an electronic literature search for relevant studies published in any language up to March 2010. Key conference proceedings and national orthopaedic registries were searched, professional organizations and implant manufacturers were approached, and reference lists from included studies were screened. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials assessing single mini-incision surgery, defined as an incision of ≤ 10 cm, compared with standard primary total hip replacement. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS Fifteen randomized and five quasi-randomized controlled trials, involving 1857 participants, were eligible. Included trials were of mixed methodological quality, with the sample size ranging from twenty to 219. Mean follow-up periods were short, ranging from six weeks to three years. Compared with standard total hip replacement, mini-incision procedures may have small perioperative advantages in terms of less blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter inpatient stay, but the differences were not clinically important. Few complications were reported, and the complication rate did not differ significantly between groups. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any major difference in the short-term revision rate, and confidence intervals for surrogate measures for long-term outcome were broad enough to include clinically important differences in favor of either approach. CONCLUSIONS Although there were marginal short-term advantages and disadvantages for each of the surgical techniques, there was no strong evidence either for or against mini-incision compared with standard-incision total hip replacement. Importantly, evidence on longer-term performance, especially the risk of revision arthroplasty, for mini-incision hip arthroplasty is very limited.

[1]  K. Knahr,et al.  Minimally invasive compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparative gait analysis. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  S. Leuchte,et al.  Minimal-invasiver vs. transglutealer Hüftgelenkersatz , 2008, Der Orthopäde.

[3]  R. Brand,et al.  Editorial: Minimally Invasive and Small-incision Joint Replacement Surgery: What Surgeons Should Consider , 2005, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.

[4]  Licensing.  2008-2009 annual report , 2009 .

[5]  J. Higgins.  Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[6]  Young-Hoo Kim.  Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  S. Odum,et al.  Outcome Comparison of Partial and Full Component Revision TKA , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  C. Rorabeck,et al.  The operation of the century: total hip replacement , 2007, The Lancet.

[9]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  S. Leuchte,et al.  [Minimally invasive vs. transgluteal total hip replacement. A 3-month follow-up of a prospective randomized clinical study]. , 2008, Der Orthopade.

[11]  I. Needleman,et al.  CONSORT. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. , 1999, British dental journal.

[12]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: what role does patient preconditioning play? , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  Wk Chung,et al.  Mini-Incision Total Hip Replacement—Surgical Technique and Early Results , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[14]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[15]  Thomas P Sculco,et al.  Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  Sunny Kim.  Changes in surgical loads and economic burden of hip and knee replacements in the US: 1997-2004. , 2008, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  L. Dorr,et al.  Psychologic Reasons for Patients Preferring Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  A. Maeyama,et al.  Comparison of skin blood flow between mini- and standard-incision approaches during total hip arthroplasty. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  C. Ranawat,et al.  A common sense approach to minimally invasive total hip replacement. , 2005, Orthopedics.

[20]  A. Darzi,et al.  Recent advances in minimal access surgery , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  R. Berger.  Mini-incision total hip replacement using an anterolateral approach: technique and results. , 2004, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[22]  L. Havelin,et al.  THE NORWEGIAN HIP FRACTURE REGISTER , 2009 .

[23]  M. Janeček,et al.  Component position following total hip arthroplasty through a miniinvasive posterolateral approach. , 2005, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[24]  J. Puget,et al.  Learning curve for a modified Watson-Jones minimally invasive approach in primary total hip replacement: analysis of complications and early results versus the standard-incision posterior approach. , 2006, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[25]  Patricia Humphreys,et al.  A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  C. Ranawat,et al.  Minimally invasive total joint arthroplasty: where are we going? , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  Robert N. Hensinger,et al.  Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons , 1995 .

[28]  Kenneth F. Schulz,et al.  The CONSORT Statement , 1996 .

[29]  A. Ferretti,et al.  A lateral minimal-incision technique in total hip replacement: a prospective, randomizes, controlled trial. , 2007, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[30]  David S Hungerford,et al.  Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[31]  H. Vet,et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  Xianlong Zhang,et al.  [Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with anterior incision]. , 2006, Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery].

[33]  C Fraser,et al.  A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip. , 2008, Health technology assessment.