Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of total hip arthroplasty with conventional instrument OCM approach and posterolateral approach in supine position.
Methods: From February 2017 to January 2019, 67 patients underwent hip arthroplasty due to hip diseases, including 21 patients in the minimally invasive group, 12 males and 9 females;there were 10 cases of femoral neck fracture, 5 cases of aseptic necrosis of femoral head and 6 cases of hip osteoarthritis. In the traditional group, 46 cases were treated by traditional posterolateral approach, including 28 males and 18 females;there were 24 cases of femoral neck fracture, 12 cases of aseptic necrosis of femoral head and 10 cases of hip osteoarthritis. All patientsused biological ceramic artificial joint prosthesis. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, preoperative and postoperative creatine kinase (CK-NAC), underground activity time, hospital stay, abduction angle and anteversion angle of prosthesis were observed and compared between two groups. Harris scores before operation and 12 months after operation were compared between two groups.
Results: All cases were followed up for 14 to 26(18.4±3.6) months. There was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding, postoperative anteversion and abduction angle between two groups (P>0.05). There were significant differences in operation time, incision length, postoperative creatine kinase, underground time and hospital stay between two groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in Harris function score between two groups before operation and 12 months after operation(P>0.05).
Conclusion: The two approaches of total hip arthroplasty can obtain satisfactory results.OCM approach has less damage and rapid postoperative recovery. It is a reliable surgical approach and can be popularized and used.
Keywords: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Minimal surgical procedures; Rehabilitation.