A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 12, Issue 26, 2008, Pages

  de Verteuil, R ^a,b   Imamura, M ^a   Zhu, S ^a   Glazener, C ^a   Fraser, C ^a   Munro, N ^c   Hutchison, J ^b   Grant, A ^b   Coyle, D ^d,e   Coyle, K ^e   Vale, L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c NHS GRAMPIAN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^e NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT; MORPHINE; NARCOTIC ANALGESIC AGENT;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BLEEDING; BLOOD VESSEL INJURY; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEATH; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FOLLOW UP; HARRIS HIP SCORE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HIP FRACTURE; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNET; LENGTH OF STAY; MEDICAL EXPERT; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NERVE INJURY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CONTROLLED ANALGESIA; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; POSTOPERATIVE THROMBOSIS; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALKING AID; WORK RESUMPTION;

EID: 48349091035     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta12260     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. Coventry MB. Foreword. In: Amutz HC, editor. Hip arthroplasty. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.
2. NHS Scotland. Scottish Arthroplasty Project Annual Report 2006. Edinburgh: NHS Scotland; 2006. URL: http://www.arthro.scot.nhs.uk/ Reports/Arthro_Report_2006.pdf. Accessed April 2007.
3. National Joint Registry Centre. National Joint Registry Annual Report 2005-2006. Hemel Hempstead: National Joint Registry Centre; 2006. URL: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/documents/reports/annual/3rd/ NJR_AR2.pdf. Accessed April 2007.
4. NICE. Minimally invasive two-incision surgery for total hip replacement. Interventional Procedure Guidance IPG112. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2005. URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/IPG112/?template=ipcat.aspx. Accessed April 2007.
5. NICE. Single mini-incision surgery for total hip replacement. Interventional Procedure Guidance IPG152. London: National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence; 2006. URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/IPG152/?template=ipcat.aspx. Accessed April 2007.
6. Department of Health. Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel Database. London: Department of Health, NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency; 2007. URL: http://www.pasa.nhs.uk/. Accessed April 2007.
7. NICE. Hip disease - metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Guidance Number TA44. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2001.URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA44/guidance/pdf/English. Accessed April 2007.
8. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:177-84.
9. National Joint Registry Centre. National Joint Registry for England & Wales. 1st Annual Report. Hemel Hempstead: National Joint Registry Centre. 2004. URL: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/documents/ reports/annual/1st/fullreport04.pdf. Accessed April 2007.
10. National Joint Registry Centre. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 2nd Annual Report. Hemel Hempstead: National Joint Registry Centre; 2005. URL: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/documents/ reports/annual/2nd/NJR2_fullreport. pdf. Accessed April 2007.
11. Haukeland University Hospital. Centre for Excellence for Joint Replacement: the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, the Norwegian Cruiate Ligament Register, the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Bergen: Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery; 2006. URL: http://www.haukeland.no/nrl/Report2006.pdf. Accessed April 2007.
12. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2005 CJRR Report: Total Hip and Total Knee Replacements in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2005. URL: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/ dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_30_E. Accessed April 2007.
13. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2006 CJRR Report: Total Hip and Total Knee Replacements in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2006. URL: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/ dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_30_E. Accessed April 2007.
14. Hunt D. Minimal access orthopaedics. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1995.
15. Darzi A, Mackay S. Recent advances in minimal access surgery. BMJ 2002;324:31-4.
16. Lukoschek M, Breusch SJ. Minimal incision approaches to the hip. In: Breusch SJ, Malchau H, editors. The well-cemented total hip arthroplasty: theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. pp. 2-15.
17. Berger RA, Duwelius PJ. The two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: technique and results. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 3:163-72.
18. Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39A:811-27.
19. Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982;64:17-19.
20. Watson-Jones R. Fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 1936;23:787-808.
21. Harkness JW. Arthroplasty of hip. In: Canale ST, editor. Campbell's operative orthopaedics. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1998. pp. 296-471.
22. Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS. Minimally invasive total joint arthroplasty: where are we going? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:2070-1.
23. Hungerford DS. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:81-2.
24. Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS. A common sense approach to minimally invasive total hip replacement. Orthopedics 2005;28:937-8.
25. NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201974. Accessed September 2005.
26. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1235-41.
27. Archibeck MJ, White RE Jr. Learning curve for the two-incision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 2004;429:232-8.
28. Asayama I, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM. Two-year experience using a limited-incision direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty 2006;21:1083-91.
29. Berger RA. Mini-incision total hip replacement using an anterolateral approach: technique and results. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35:143-51.
30. Chen J, Chen W, Zhou J, Huang H. Clinical research and following results on the minimal incision and traditional total hip arthroplasty. Fudan Xuebao (Yixueban) 2006;33:257-82.
31. Chimento GF. Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:139-44.
32. Chung WK, Liu D, Foo LS. Mini-incision total hip replacement - surgical technique and early results. J Orthop Surg 2004;12:19-24.
33. Ciminiello M, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF. Eslampour A, Rothman RH. Total hip arthroplasty: is small incision better? J Arthroplasty 2006; 21:484-8.
34. de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Zalzal P, Winemaker MJ. Single-incision, minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: length doesn't matter. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:945-50.
35. DiGioia AM III, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:123-8.
36. Dorr L, Thomas D, Long W, Polatin P, Sirianni L. Psychologic reasons for patients preferring minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2007;458:94-100.
37. Duwelius PJ, Berger RA, Hartzband MA, Mears DC. Two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: operative technique and early results from four centers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85A:2240-2.
38. Duwelius PJ, Burkhart RL, Hayhurst JO, Moller H, Butler JB. Comparison of the 2-incision and mini-incision posterior total hip arthroplasty technique. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:48-56.
39. Flören M, Lester DK. Durability of implant fixation after less-invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21:783-90.
40. Hart R, Stipcak V, Janecek M, Visna P. Component position following total hip arthroplasty through a miniinvasive posterolateral approach. Acta Orthop Belg 2005;71:60-4.
41. Hartzband MA. Posterolateral mini-incision total hip arthroplasty. Oper Tech Orthop 2006;16:93-101.
42. Howell JR, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Minimally invasive versus standard incision anterolateral hip replacement: a comparative study. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:153-62.
43. Kim Y-H. Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:1092-8.
44. Li Z, Shi Z, Guo W, Zhang N, Sun W. Preliminary experiences in minimally invasive and mini-incision surgery total hip arthroplasty for late osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Chung Kuo Hsiu Fu Chung Chien Wai Ko Tsa Chih 2005;19:710-13 (in Chinese).
45. O'Brien DA, Rorabeck CH. The mini-incision direct lateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2005; 441:99-103.
46. Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O'Brien S, et al. A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:701-10.
47. Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Meneghini RM, Hanssen AD. Patients preferred a mini-posterior THA to a contralateral two-incision THA. Clin Orthop 2006;453:156--9.
48. Pilot P, Kerens B, Draijer Wf. Kort NP, ten Kate J, Buurman WA, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery less invasive in total hip replacement? A pilot study. Injury 2006;37:S17-23.
49. Pipino F. CFP prosthetic stem in mini-invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 2004;5:165-71.
50. Siguier T, Siguier M, Brumpt B. Mini-incision anterior approach does not increase dislocation rate: a study of 1037 total hip replacements. Clin Orthop 2004;426:164-73.
51. Swanson TV. Early results of 1000 consecutive, posterior, single-incision minimally invasive surgery total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2005;7:26-32.
52. Szendrói M, Sztrinkai G, Vass R, Kiss J. The impact of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty on the standard procedure. Int Orthop 2006;30:167-71.
53. Tanavalee A, Jaruwannapong S, Yuktanandana P, Itiravivong P. Early outcomes following minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty using a two-incision approach versus a mini-posterior approach. Hip Int 2006;16:S17-22.
54. Teet JS, Skinner HB, Khoury L. The effect of the "mini" incision in total hip arthroplasty on component position. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:503-7.
55. Woolson ST, Mow CS, Syquia JF, Lannin JV, Schurman DJ. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a standard incision or a mini-incision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86A:1353-8.
56. Wright JM, Crockett HC, Delgado S, Lyman S, Madsen M, Sculco TP. Mini-incision for total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled investigation with 5-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:538--45.
57. Yan Z-Q, Chen Y-S, Yang Y, Li W-J, Chen Z-R, Zhang G-J. Two-incision minimal invasive approach for total hip replacement. Acta Acad Med Shanghai 2005;32:557-60 (in Chinese).
58. Zhang XL, Wang Q, Jiang Y, Zeng BF. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with anterior incision. Chung Hua Wai Ko Tsa Chih 2006; 44:512-15 (in Chinese).
59. Bennett D, Ogonda L, Elliott D, Humphreys L, Beverland DE. Comparison of gait kinematics in patients receiving minimally invasive and traditional hip replacement surgery: a prospective blinded study. Gait Posture 2006;23:374-82.
60. Berger RA. Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop 2003;417:232-41.
61. Duwelius PJ, Berger RA. The two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: technique and results. Semin Arthroplasty 2004; 15:99-107.
62. Duwelius PJ. Two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: techniques and results to date. Instr Course Lect 2006; 55:215-22.
63. Hafez MA, Seel MJ, Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM III. Navigation in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroscopy. Oper Tech Orthop 2006;16:207-10.
64. Hart R, Stipcak V, Janecek M, Visna P. Radiological study of THA after mini-incision technique. Hip Int 2005;15:98-101.
65. Inaba Y, Dorr LD, Wan Z, Sirianni L, Boutary M. Operative and patient care techniques for posterior mini-incision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2005;441:104-14.
66. Lawlor M, Humphreys P, Morrow E, Ogonda L, Bennett D, Elliott D, et al. Comparison of early postoperative functional levels following total hip replacement using minimally invasive versus standard incisions. A prospective randomized blinded trial. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:465-74.
67. Mow CS, Woolson ST, Ngarmukos SG, Park EH, Lorenz HP. Comparison of scars from total hip replacements done with a standard or a mini-incision. Clin Orthop 2005;441:80-5.
68. Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am 2004;35:137-42.
69. Charles MN, Fejbel RJ, Kim P. Minimally invasive surgery of the hip - a randomized pilot study. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Toronto, June 2006. Poster 88.
70. DiGioia AM III. Mini incision supported by navigation. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Fransisco, March 2003. Symposia (ORS1).
71. Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Callaghan JJ, Hozack WJ. Comparative cohort study of 2-incision versus 1-incision MIS THA. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Chicago, March 2006. Paper No. 200.
72. Pagnano MW, Meneghini RM, Kaufman K, Colemam-Wood K, Berg E, Hanssen AD. No benefit of the 2-incision technique over miniposterior total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive gait analysis and strength testing study. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:301.
73. Pagnano MW, Leone J, Hanssen AD, Trousdale RTM, Berg E. A prospective randomized clinical trial shows that 2-incision total hips do not recover quicker than miniposterior total hips. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:303.
74. Panisello JJ, Canales V, Herrera A, Mateo J, Peguero A. Effectiveness of mini-incision technique in primary hip replacement. J BoneJoint Surg Br 2006;88B:63.
75. Rachbauer F. Rosiek R, Nogler M, Kessler O. The benefits of the direct anterior approach in minimally invasive THA. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Chicago, March 2006. Paper No. 202.
76. Rothman RH, Ciminiello M, Parvizi J. Total hip arthroplasty: does incision length matter. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DC, March 2005. Paper No. 137.
77. Sharma S, Bharma MS. A prospective randomised pilot study to compare early post-operative recovery after conventional versus minimal incision posterior approach for total hip joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88B:243.
78. Takahira N, Uchiyama K, Takasi S, Katano M, Itoman M. Prospective comparison study of clinical data between the minimal incision and conventional incision in total hip arthroplasty. 19th Annual Symposium of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, New York, October 2006. Abstract A9-3.
79. Yoon TR, Moon E, Rowe SM, Jung ST, Seo HY, Lee JY. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: comparison between one-incision and two-incision technique. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DC, March 2005. Paper No. 147.
80. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21:271-92.
81. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. NHS Economic Evaluation Database Handbook. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2007. URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/nhseeed-handb07.pdf. Accessed April 2007.
82. Straumann D, Valderrabano V, Eckstein M, Dick W, Dora C. Cost-benefit analysis of MIS THA: model-based analysis of the consequences for Switzerland. Hip Int 2006;16:S54-7.
83. Bertin KC. Minimally invasive outpatient total hip arthroplasty: a financial analysis. Clin Orthop 2005;435:154-63.
84. Chang RW, Pellissier JM, Hazen GB. A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip.JAMA 1996; 275:858-65.
85. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
86. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. In: Chalmers I, Alvarez G, editors. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1995.
87. Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. annual report 2004. Goteborg: Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Othropaedics; 2005. URL: http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed January 2007.
88. Fender D, Harper WM, Gregg PJ. The Trent regional arthroplasty study. Experiences with a hip register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82:944-7.
89. Government Actuary's Department. Interim life tables. London: United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department; 2007. URL: http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/Interim_life_tables.htm. Accessed January 2007.
90. SIGN. Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism. SIGN Guideline No. 62. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2002. URL: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/62/index.html. Accessed January 2007.
91. Vale L, Wyness L, McCormack K, McKenzie L, Brazzelli M, Stearns SC. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthoplasty for treatment of hip disease. Health Technol Assess 2002;6(15).
92. NHS: The Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics. London: NHS: The Information Centre; 2006. URL: http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/ servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=537. Accessed January 2007.
93. Curtis L, Netten, A. Unit costs of health and social care. University of Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2006. URL: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2006/uc2006.pdf. Accessed January 2007.
94. ISD Scotland. Scotttish Health Services costs. Edinburgh: ISD Scotland; 2006. URL: http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/797.html. Accessed January 2007.
95. British Orthopaedic Association. Primary total hip replacement: a guide to good practice. London: British Orthopaedic Association; 2006. URL: http://www.boa.ac.uk/. Accessed January 2007.
96. Department of Health. NHS reference costs. London: Department of Health; 2007. URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/ Organisationpolicy/Financeandplanning/NHSreferencecosts/index.htm. Accessed January 2007.
97. SIGN. Antithrombotic therapy. SIGN Guideline No. 36. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 1999. URL: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/36/index.html. Accessed January 2007.
98. BMJ Publishing Group. British National Formulary 53. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2007. URL: http://www.bnf.org/bnf/. Accessed January 2007.
99. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:1125-9.
100. Robinson AH, Palmer CR, Villar RN. Is revision as good as primary hip replacement? A comparison of quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81: 42-5.
101. Malchau H, Garellick G, Eisler T, Karrholm J, Herberts P. Presidential guest address: the Swedish Hip Registry: increasing the sensitivity by patient outcome data. Clin Orthop 2005;441:19-29.
102. Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ Marting LN, Verbout AJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:801-8.
103. Ostendorf M, Buskens E, van Stel H, Schrijvers A, Marting L, Dhert W, et al. Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 302-9.
104. NICE. Guidance on the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201973. Accessed September 2006.
105. Van Hout B, Al M, Gordon G. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309-19.
106. NICE. Guidance on the selection of prostheses for primary total hip replacement. Technology Appraisal Guidance No 2. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000. URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA2/guidance/pdf/English. Accessed April 2007.
107. White SP, Smith EJ. Minimal access surgery for total hip arthroplasty - current beliefs and activity profile in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007;89:36-40.
108. Khan RJK, Fick D, Khoo P, Yao F, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Less invasive total hip arthroplasty. Description of a new technique. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:1038-46.
109. Mardones R, Pagnano MW, Nemanich JP, Trousdale RT. Muscle damage after total hip arthroplasty done with the two-incision and mini-posterior techniques. Clin Orthop 2005;441: 63-7.
110. Parvizi J, Pour AE, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH, Callaghan JJ, Hozack WJ. Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: what role does patient preconditioning play. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Chicago, March 2006. Paper No. 201.
111. Wright JM, Rosse D, Rosse S. A prospective randomized patient-blinded comparison of mini versus standard incision THA. Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DC, March 2005. Paper No. 139.