Objectives: To determine the differences in postoperative range of motion, the amount of lost and compensated blood, the length of skin incision, experienced pain and the duration of procedure between the two approaches that are used in total hip replacement: minimally invasive and standard lateral approach. Study design: This study is constructed as a cross-sectional study. Study includes 46 patients, of whom 36 patients had total hip replacement through minimally invasive approach and 10 patients through standard lateral approach. Material and methods: Patients’ data were obtained from the medical documentation of the Institute of Orthopaedic surgery at the Clinical Hospital Centre Osijek. The following data were observed: the duration of the procedure and the experienced pain, the amount of lost and compensated blood, the amount of compensated liquid, postoperative range of motion, the length of the recovery and the length of the skin incision. Results: In comparisson with standard lateral approach, minimally invasive total hip replacement has achieved on average, although not statistically significant, with lower amount of blood loss and experienced pain and lower amount of compensated blood and liquid during the procedure. Also, minimally invasive approach has significantly lowered the length of the skin incision, raised average ranges of postoperative flexion and abduction and extended the duration of the procedure. Conclusion: In comparisson with standard lateral approach, patients operated through minimally invasive approach experienced lower blood loss and smaller skin incision during the operation and had less experienced pain and better range of motion after the operation.