Comparison of Patient Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes between Minimally Invasive and Conventional Total Hip Replacement

Abstract

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) is a common and effective intervention for end-stage hip joint disease. Minimally invasive (MI) approaches have been developed to reduce tissue trauma and improve recovery, but comparative data on patient satisfaction and functional outcomes remain limited. Aim: To compare patient satisfaction and functional outcomes between minimally invasive and conventional total hip replacement. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 240 patients undergoing primary THR at a tertiary care center, divided into minimally invasive (n=118) and conventional (n=122) groups. Demographic data, perioperative parameters, postoperative patient satisfaction (0-100 scale), and functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score at 6 and 12 months) were recorded. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between groups. Results: Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. The minimally invasive group showed significantly higher patient satisfaction scores (mean 89.3 vs. 82.4, p<0.001) and better functional outcomes at 6 months (HHS 82.6 vs. 77.2, p<0.001) and 12 months (HHS 90.5 vs. 86.8, p<0.001). Additionally, operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the MI group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Minimally invasive total hip replacement offers superior patient satisfaction and functional recovery with favorable perioperative outcomes compared to conventional THR. These findings support the adoption of minimally invasive techniques in suitable patients.