Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a Meta analysis / 中华创伤杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To collect domestic and foreign literatures on mini-invasive total hiparthroplasty (THA) and conventional THA so as to assay the clinical outcomes of the two treatments usingMeta analysis.Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mini-invasive THA and conventionalTHA that met the inclusion criteria were collected in the computer-based retrieval combined with manualretrieval of databases such as MEDLINE,EMBASE,OVID,and ScienceDirect.Methodological qualityassessment of the included literatures was performed using Cochrane risk evaluation tool and Meta analysisof those literatures was made by employing RevMan 5.1 software.Two surgical approaches were comparedin regard of indices including postoperative Harris hip score,operation time,intraoperative blood loss andcomplications.Results The study involved 17 related articles (18 RCTs containing 1 560 patients),including 774 patients treated by mini-invasive THA and 786 by conventional THA.The study showedsignificant differences between mini-invasive THA and conventional THA in aspects of incision length[WMD=-5.93,95％ CI (-7.29,-4.57)],blood loss [SMD =-0.45,95％ CI (-0.77,-0.13)] and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) [MD =-19.58,95％ CI (-26.38,-12.78)],whereas there were no significant differences regarding the postoperative Harris score [WMD =0.85,95％ CI (-3.50,5.20)],operation time [WMD=-0.99,95％ CI (-5.36,3.39)],blood transfusion volume [WMD =-66.29,95％ CI (-241.31,108.72)] and complication incidence rate [RR =1.01,95％ CI (0.61,1.66)].Conclusions Mini-invasive THA offers advantages of smaller incision,less intraoperative blood loss and milder postoperative pain over conventional THA but has similar effect with conventional THA in aspects of Harris hip score,operation duration,blood transfusion volume and complications.Moreover,high quality,multicenter and large scale RCTs are required to confirm the outcomes.