Key result
The minimally invasive anterolateral approach significantly reduced surgical time (53.5 vs 65 min) and blood loss (82.2 vs 195.7 ml) compared to the conventional posterior approach.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare outcomes between minimally invasive anterolateral and conventional posterior hip approaches for hemiarthroplasty in hip fractures.
Does a minimally invasive anterolateral approach improve surgical and recovery outcomes compared to a conventional posterior approach in elderly patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures?
Population
Elderly patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures in Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Hospital
Comparison
Minimally invasive anterolateral approach vs conventional posterior approach
Design
Randomized trial
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change surgical practice; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
RCT (n=92)
Randomized
No
Does a minimally invasive anterolateral approach improve surgical and recovery outcomes compared to a conventional posterior approach in elderly patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures?
Absolute Event Rate: 53.48% vs 65%
p-value: p=0.001
In elderly patients with hip fractures, a minimally invasive anterolateral approach for hemiarthroplasty reduces surgical time, blood loss, and time to mobilization compared to a conventional posterior approach.
Pranpawee Rojcharoenngam (2022) conducted an RCT in Hip fractures (n=92). Minimally invasive anterolateral approach vs. Conventional posterior approach was evaluated on Surgical time (minutes) (p=0.001). The minimally invasive anterolateral approach significantly reduced surgical time (53.5 vs 65 min) and blood loss (82.2 vs 195.7 ml) compared to the conventional posterior approach.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: