English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The increasing rate of orthopedic procedures, hip arthroplasty in particular, requires improvement of surgical techniques, as well as of the respective rehabilitation protocols. The aim of the study was to assess differences in the quality of life and incidence of limping eight years after total hip arthroplasty performed with a minimally invasive or classic approach. This cross-sectional study included 68 patients, i.e. 32 operated with classic approach and 36 with minimally invasive approach during 2011. The following parameters were observed: anthropometric measurements, history of comorbidity, subjective assessment of limping, and SF-36 questionnaire (Short Form Survey Instrument). SF-36 testing, which consists of 8 domains, showed that 5 domains of the quality of life were statistically significantly better in the minimally invasive group (level of significance p&lt;0.05). These domains were role of limitation due to physical health (p=0.01), energy (p=0.02), social functioning (p=0.02), pain (p=0.02) and general health (p=0.00). The minimally invasive group had a statistically significantly lower incidence of limping (p=0.032). Quality of life after hip replacement could be a decisive factor when choosing the type of orthopedic procedure. The higher number of limping patients in the classic approach group may have contributed to differences in the quality of life. In conclusion, the minimally invasive approach enables higher long-term quality of life and functional recovery.

Difference in Patient Quality of Life after Hip Arthroplasty with a Minimally Invasive Approach or Classic Approach