Is Less-Invasive Hip Replacement Best for You?
Less cutting sounds like a good thing when it comes to hip replacement. But experts say knowing the right questions to ask is key to determining if this new technique is for you.
Research recently presented at a meeting of orthopaedic specialists shows that patients often fare no better with minimally invasive hip replacement than those having a standard hip replacement -- and may do worse.
Ankylosing Spondylitis
Important It is possible that the main title of the report Ankylosing Spondylitis is not the name you expected. Please check the synonyms listing to find the alternate name(s) and disorder subdivision(s) covered by this report.
Read the Ankylosing Spondylitis article > >
Proponents of minimally invasive hip replacement say small-incision operations can lessen blood loss, ease post-operative pain, trim hospital stays, improve scar appearance, and speed healing. In the hands of properly trained surgeons, they say, patients can expect benefits that were once unimaginable.
Richard A. Berger, MD, who refined the technique, says most of his patients go home the same day as surgery and can walk without crutches within eight days. He says his technique steers clear of muscle and tendon damage during surgery. Berger is assistant professor at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago.
But critics say minimally invasive hip replacement is overhyped and underproven. The scientific evidence supporting it has come from a small group of enthusiastic innovators, they point out. Poor positioning of hip implants during surgery can occur more frequently, in turn leading to hip dislocations and pain in the short run or failure in the longer term.
And the learning curve can be perilously steep. In one new study, the complication rate using a highly touted technique in an experienced surgeon's first 80 patients was nearly four times higher than normal. The complications were also disproportionately more serious. The study was presented during the recent annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery in Washington, D.C.
Experts advise patients who are considering minimally invasive hip replacement to educate themselves on the pros and cons of the operation and choose their surgeons carefully.
Experts say there is simply not enough scientific evidence about this new form of surgery to form firm conclusions.
More evidence and better evaluation of minimally invasive hip replacement will be necessary "before these techniques are recommended for more widespread clinical practice," concludes a recent advisory statement from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.
Research recently presented at a meeting of orthopaedic specialists shows that patients often fare no better with minimally invasive hip replacement than those having a standard hip replacement -- and may do worse.
Recommended Related to Arthritis
Ankylosing Spondylitis
Important It is possible that the main title of the report Ankylosing Spondylitis is not the name you expected. Please check the synonyms listing to find the alternate name(s) and disorder subdivision(s) covered by this report.
Read the Ankylosing Spondylitis article > >
Proponents of minimally invasive hip replacement say small-incision operations can lessen blood loss, ease post-operative pain, trim hospital stays, improve scar appearance, and speed healing. In the hands of properly trained surgeons, they say, patients can expect benefits that were once unimaginable.
Richard A. Berger, MD, who refined the technique, says most of his patients go home the same day as surgery and can walk without crutches within eight days. He says his technique steers clear of muscle and tendon damage during surgery. Berger is assistant professor at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago.
But critics say minimally invasive hip replacement is overhyped and underproven. The scientific evidence supporting it has come from a small group of enthusiastic innovators, they point out. Poor positioning of hip implants during surgery can occur more frequently, in turn leading to hip dislocations and pain in the short run or failure in the longer term.
And the learning curve can be perilously steep. In one new study, the complication rate using a highly touted technique in an experienced surgeon's first 80 patients was nearly four times higher than normal. The complications were also disproportionately more serious. The study was presented during the recent annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery in Washington, D.C.
Experts advise patients who are considering minimally invasive hip replacement to educate themselves on the pros and cons of the operation and choose their surgeons carefully.
Wanted: Better Evidence
Experts say there is simply not enough scientific evidence about this new form of surgery to form firm conclusions.
More evidence and better evaluation of minimally invasive hip replacement will be necessary "before these techniques are recommended for more widespread clinical practice," concludes a recent advisory statement from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.