IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0080021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mini-Incision versus Standard Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty Regarding Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Chang-Peng Xu
  • Xue Li
  • Jin-Qi Song
  • Zhuang Cui
  • Bin Yu

Abstract

Purpose: It remains controversial whether mini-incision (MI) benefits patients in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of MI on surgical and functional outcomes in THA patients. Methods: A systematic electronic literature search (up to May 2013) was conducted to identify RCTs comparing MI with standard incision (SI) THA. The primary outcome measures were surgical and functional outcomes. According to the surgical approach taken, MI THA patients were divided into four subgroups for sub-group meta-analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk differences (RDs) with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a fixed-effect or random-effect model according to the heterogeneity. Results: A total of 14 RCTs involving THA 1,174 patients met the inclusion criteria. The trials were medium risk of bias. The overall meta-analysis showed MI THA reduced total blood loss (95% CI, -201.83 to -21.18; p=.02) and length of hospital stay ( 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.08; p=.01) with significant heterogeneity. However, subgroup meta-analysis revealed posterior MI THA had perioperative advantages of reduced surgical duration ( 95% CI, -8.45 to -2.67; P .05, respectively). Conclusions: Although no definite overall conclusion can be arrived at on whether MI THA is superior to SI THA, posterior MI THA clearly result in a significant decrease in surgical duration, blood loss and hospital stay. It seems to be a safe minimally invasive surgical procedure without increasing the risk of component malposition or complications.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang-Peng Xu & Xue Li & Jin-Qi Song & Zhuang Cui & Bin Yu, 2013. "Mini-Incision versus Standard Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty Regarding Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080021
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080021&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0080021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baohui Yang & Haopeng Li & Xijing He & Guoyu Wang & Siyue Xu, 2012. "Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches and Traditional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Radiological and Complications Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-7, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.