Comparative of Patients with Total Hip Replacement – Minimally Invasive versus Classical Approach
Abstract
Objective. The aim the current study is to investigate the comparative evolution of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, practiced by two types of surgical approach, a classical one (the lateral approach side) and a minimally invasive one (anterolateral approach).
Materials and methods. Participants for the study were selected from patients admitted to the Rehabilitation Hospital of Cluj Napoca, and randomized into two experimental groups: the classical approach group (N=31) and minimally invasive approach group (N=24). Assessment tools used 1) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for the assessment of pain; 2) the Harris score for the assessment of quality of life after total hip arthroplasty; 3) the Clinical Registration Questionnaire.
Results. Results of this study show that patients undergoing minimally invasive intervention had higher scores on the Harris scale compared to those in which intervention was based on the classical protocol. Patients who underwent minimally invasive intervention, had lower scores on the VAS pain than those in which the intervention was based on the classical protocol. Negligible interaction effect showed that the minimally invasive approach was superior to laparoscopic classical technique in terms of VAS pain score and that these effects characterized each phase of research.
Conclusion. The study confirms the superiority of the minimally invasive approach over the classical approach in terms of functionality, measured by Harris hip score and the perceived pain measured with the Visual Analog Scale.