Abstract
We review recent publications (primarily January, 2007 through July, 2008) and describe the development of minimally invasive techniques and protocols for total hip arthroplasty. The main themes are the short-term outcome differences between standard and minimally invasive surgical approaches and between two types of minimally invasive surgical approaches: the mini-posterior and two-incision approach. Some investigators contend that outcome depends on choice of surgical approach alone; others have found that outcome is more attributable to perioperative protocols. The distinction between minimally invasive and mini-incision surgery continues to be clarified. The literature indicates that (1) patient expectations, anesthetic modality and rapid rehabilitation protocols may affect recovery time more than the type of surgical approach or length of skin incision; (2) deep dissection plays more of a role in recovery than the length of skin incision; and (3) the differences in outcomes related to the type of minimally invasive surgical approach remain undistinguished. However, patients and surgeons continue to believe that smaller incisions lead to better outcomes. Additional investigation is needed to identify the best approach and to delineate the specific roles of expectations, pain control and rapid rehabilitation.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 25-28 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Current Orthopaedic Practice |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 2009 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Minimally invasive surgery
- Perioperative regimes
- Surgical approach
- Total hip arthroptasty
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Cite this
Minimally invasive surgery for total hip arthroplasty. / Wall, Simon J.; Mears, Simon C.
In: Current Orthopaedic Practice, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.2009, p. 25-28.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Minimally invasive surgery for total hip arthroplasty
AU - Wall, Simon J.
AU - Mears, Simon C.
PY - 2009/1
Y1 - 2009/1
N2 - We review recent publications (primarily January, 2007 through July, 2008) and describe the development of minimally invasive techniques and protocols for total hip arthroplasty. The main themes are the short-term outcome differences between standard and minimally invasive surgical approaches and between two types of minimally invasive surgical approaches: the mini-posterior and two-incision approach. Some investigators contend that outcome depends on choice of surgical approach alone; others have found that outcome is more attributable to perioperative protocols. The distinction between minimally invasive and mini-incision surgery continues to be clarified. The literature indicates that (1) patient expectations, anesthetic modality and rapid rehabilitation protocols may affect recovery time more than the type of surgical approach or length of skin incision; (2) deep dissection plays more of a role in recovery than the length of skin incision; and (3) the differences in outcomes related to the type of minimally invasive surgical approach remain undistinguished. However, patients and surgeons continue to believe that smaller incisions lead to better outcomes. Additional investigation is needed to identify the best approach and to delineate the specific roles of expectations, pain control and rapid rehabilitation.
AB - We review recent publications (primarily January, 2007 through July, 2008) and describe the development of minimally invasive techniques and protocols for total hip arthroplasty. The main themes are the short-term outcome differences between standard and minimally invasive surgical approaches and between two types of minimally invasive surgical approaches: the mini-posterior and two-incision approach. Some investigators contend that outcome depends on choice of surgical approach alone; others have found that outcome is more attributable to perioperative protocols. The distinction between minimally invasive and mini-incision surgery continues to be clarified. The literature indicates that (1) patient expectations, anesthetic modality and rapid rehabilitation protocols may affect recovery time more than the type of surgical approach or length of skin incision; (2) deep dissection plays more of a role in recovery than the length of skin incision; and (3) the differences in outcomes related to the type of minimally invasive surgical approach remain undistinguished. However, patients and surgeons continue to believe that smaller incisions lead to better outcomes. Additional investigation is needed to identify the best approach and to delineate the specific roles of expectations, pain control and rapid rehabilitation.
KW - Minimally invasive surgery
KW - Perioperative regimes
KW - Surgical approach
KW - Total hip arthroptasty
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59949098345&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59949098345&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BCO.0b013e318193ec70
DO - 10.1097/BCO.0b013e318193ec70
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:59949098345
VL - 20
SP - 25
EP - 28
JO - Current Orthopaedic Practice
JF - Current Orthopaedic Practice
SN - 1940-7041
IS - 1
ER -