Comparative Analysis of Surgical Techniques in Total Hip Replacement: An Observational Study

Abstract

Objective: This observational study compared the results of four surgical approaches for total hip replacement (THR) in order to shed light on the patient outcomes, complications, and healing times related to each method.

Methods: Information was gathered on 400 primary THR cases, with patients divided into four surgical groups based on their surgical technique: posterior approach, lateral approach, anterior approach, and minimally invasive surgery. A number of data points were analyzed, including patient demographics, preoperative diagnoses, operation time, implant kinds, postoperative pain levels, complications, and functional improvement (measured by the Harris Hip Score).

Results: The lateral route required a shorter hospital stay than the anterior method, which had the lowest levels of postoperative pain. The posterior technique showed the lowest level of functional improvement and the largest prevalence of complications, mostly dislocation. Although less invasive surgery took longer, there were fewer problems. At one year, all strategies had significantly improved their functional results.

Conclusion: This study offers a thorough comparative comparison of THR surgical procedures, providing crucial information for clinical judgment and improving the quality of life for patients with diseases of the hip joint