Abstract
As much as there is interest in mini-invasive surgery (MIS) total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is controversy ranging from a more advantageous to a potentially dangerous alternative to classic THA. The purpose of this study is to compare the results of 130 cementless, standard stem navigated primary THA with data collected retrospectively from 2005 to 2010 (64 classic Hardinge approach (HAL) and 66 MIS intermuscular anterolateral approach by the senior surgeon). Data include: operative time, perioperative bleeding, length of surgery, hospital stay, patient's satisfaction and pain perception. The alignment values at six months to a maximum of 60 months provided necessary statistical information for clinical and radiological comparison of the two groups.
Significant differences were found between the two groups with MIS being superior with respect to less surgical time (p = 0.029) and achieving quicker rehab goals with shorter hospital stay (p <0.001). Pain perception was less in MIS group with a higher satisfaction score (p <0.001). Although both groups have the potential of nerve injury to tensor fascia muscle, it's only the classic HAL that jeopardises the glutei nerve supply.
MIS approach to navigated THA seems to be an acceptable alternative with some advantages to Classic HAL.
