Background Minimally invasive knee arthroplasty seeks to diminish the problems of traditional extensile exposures aiming for more rapid rehabilitation of patients after surgery. Questions/purposesTo determine if the subvastus approach results in less perioperative pain and blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and improved function at both early and long-term followup.Methods One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized trial. Fifty were operated on using a minimally invasive subvastus approach and the other 50 by a conventional, peripatellar approach. Minimum followup was 3 years. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the Knee Society score and range of motion during followup. ResultsThe minimally invasive approach resulted in greater perioperative bleeding but no increase in transfusions. No differences were found in postoperative pain between groups nor did hospital stay show any differences.

Our results suggested that minimally invasive lateral approach has not provided significant benefits over conventional lateral approach for the implantation of a total hip arthroplasty.

PCCP and Gamma 3 have not presented significant differences in any measured parameter for treatment of stable trochanteric fractures. Therefore, the PCCP system is shown to be as minimally invasive as the Gamma 3.

The differences detected between right-side and left-side masses are not statistically significant. This indicates that, BMA and BCP, when mixed, behave like composite grafts and are able to generate sufficient bone mass for arthrodesis when a rigid instrumentation is used. However, a larger number of cases and longer follow-up are needed to generalize the indication.