Minimally Invasive Orthopaedic Surgical Techniques: Comparative Effectiveness, Complication Rates, and Patient Outcomes in a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Minimally invasive orthopaedic surgical techniques are widely used to reduce surgical trauma and enhance perioperative recovery while maintaining clinical effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive techniques compared with conventional open surgery across multiple orthopaedic subspecialties. A systematic literature search identified comparative clinical studies assessing minimally invasive and open surgical approaches. Eligible studies were screened using predefined inclusion criteria in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, and data were extracted for perioperative, functional, and safety outcomes. Quantitative synthesis was performed for outcomes reported in multiple studies. Continuous outcomes were pooled using mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, and binary outcomes were summarised using risk ratios. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Minimally invasive techniques were associated with significantly reduced operative time and intraoperative blood loss compared with open surgery. Complication rates, including infection and revision surgery, were comparable between approaches. Functional and patient-reported outcomes improved similarly in both groups, with no clinically meaningful differences at final follow-up. Minimally invasive orthopaedic surgery demonstrates improved perioperative efficiency while maintaining safety and functional outcomes comparable to open surgery, supporting its use as an effective alternative to conventional open techniques in appropriately selected clinical settings.