Resurfacing hip arthroplasty: comparison of a minimally invasive versus standard approach.
Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing recently has gained popularity as a femoral-bone-preserving procedure. There has been a concomitant upsurge in demand by patients and the surgical community for the use of minimally invasive techniques for hip arthroplasty procedures. The fundamental questions are whether these techniques can lead to better short-term outcomes without leading to increased operative times, blood loss, transfusion requirements, length of stay, and clinical and/or radiographic complications. We compared a group of 25 patients (25 hips) in whom resurfacing with a minimally invasive approach was done, with a cohort of 25 patients (25 hips) who had resurfacing using a standard procedure. Patients were followed up for a mean of 19 months (range, 17-22 months). The minimally invasive group had less intraoperative blood loss (566 mL in the minimally invasive group versus 683 mL), and better 3-month Harris hip scores (78 versus 70 points). At latest followup, there were no differences in clinical (mean Harris hip scores 95 and 93 points, respectively) or radiographic outcomes. This minimally invasive approach may be a reasonable option for joint resurfacing.


METHODS
Prognostic study, Level II (retrospective comparison study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Mont
Michael A
MA
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, MD 21215, USA. Rhondamont@aol.com
Ragland
Phillip S
PS
Marker
David
D
D000328:Adult; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000379:methods*; D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011379:Prognosis; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome