Purpose To conduct a meta-analysis of clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive (MIS) posterior/posterolateral approaches and traditional posterolateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted literature searches based on the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing MIS and traditional posterolateral approaches in THA. Harris Hip Score (HHS), visual analog scale (VAS), operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were analyzed. Results Twenty studies with 1,713 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that MIS approaches resulted in significantly higher HHSs, lower VAS scores, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and shorter incision length compared to the traditional posterolateral approach. While no significant difference was found in operation time and complication between the two groups. Conclusion Based on current evidence, MIS approaches appear to offer superior efficacy compared to traditional posterolateral approaches in THA.
Xiang et al. (Sun,) studied this question.