Extract
"Minimally invasive" hip replacement was widely introduced to
the orthopaedic community and public several years ago and has been greeted
variably with enthusiasm, concern, and
skepticism1.
Enthusiasm has centered around the potential for quicker recovery, a better
cosmetic result, and less perceived invasion of the body. Concern has focused
on the potential for more complications, related to poorer operative
visualization and the learning curve for new methods. Remarkably, despite
widespread marketing of minimally invasive methods by companies and
orthopaedic surgeons and much dissemination of information of varying accuracy
by the lay press, little objective data quantifying the risks and benefits of
these methods compared with traditional methods have been available. Early
short-term follow-up studies suggested possible benefits of the techniques,
but those investigations mostly involved selected patient populations and
often were performed with modified pain management and rehabilitation
protocols1.