Minimally Invasive Surgery
Minimally invasive total hip replacement, developed in the 1990s, uses two small incisions, which causes less damage to tendons and muscles than the traditional approach. The surgeon uses X-ray guidance in the operating room to position the artificial hip. The goal is for patients to have shorter hospital stays, quicker rehabilitation, and better results. However, there are still questions as to whether or not this is actually better than the traditional procedure.
Background
Hip replacement surgery generally has a high rate of patient satisfaction. Even so, surgeons are constantly trying to improve hip replacement. The goal of minimally invasive hip replacement is to provide a procedure that involves less pain, less blood loss, and faster rehabilitation, with results that are as good or better than traditional hip replacement. However, there is still disagreement about whether the overall results are better, or even as good, as traditional hip replacement surgery.
Where It Stands
Proponents of the two-incision technique of hip replacement argue that the surgery can be performed with the same technical precision and less postoperative morbidity. Because the surgery is less extensive, the rehabilitation may be faster, the pain may be less, and it is possible that some complications, such as blood loss and hip dislocation, may be less frequent. Patients may also leave the hospital sooner.
However, research over the years has not shown minimally invasive total hip replacement to be better than traditional surgery in the long term. Some studies have found higher rates of long-term complications in people treated with minimally invasive surgery.
Patients may be attracted to the idea of having a smaller scar and leaving the hospital a little earlier, but these are not the most important goals of hip replacement surgery. Also, not all patients are good candidates for this two-incision technique. Be sure to discuss the pros and cons with your medical team.
