During the 18th century, physicians scratched their heads as they sought to treat deteriorating hip joints affected by tuberculosis (TB). In 1921, Anthony White from London performed the first hip replacement on a 9-year-old TB patient.
Today, surgeons perform over 900,000 knee and 330,000 hip replacements annually in the U.S. These joint replacements have significantly improved patient mobility and quality of life. So, why rock the boat? Traditional joint replacements work just fine. Are the minimally invasive techniques worth the hype?
Replacement arthroplasty, or joint replacement surgery, utilizes prosthetics to treat arthritic or malfunctioning joints. In cases where pain management interventions have proven ineffective, surgeons turn to replacements. Joint replacement treats severe pain or dysfunction due to disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and other skeletal issues.
Total knee and hip replacements are the most common. But surgeons also use minimally invasive techniques for other joints, like the following:
Minimally invasive joint replacements have drastically improved over the past decade. Patients ask and providers wonder if these innovations are worth the hype.
Minimally invasive surgical procedures differ from traditional methods in more ways than one. Patients and practitioners often assume that the only difference is the incision size. This assumption is a myth. Minimally invasive surgical procedures require a complete revamp of methodology.
Traditional joint replacement surgeries cut through muscles and tendons to fully expose the malfunctioning joint. An 8-to-12-inch incision gives surgeons complete access to the area. This method allows them to manipulate the joint for a more comprehensive view.
For example, the kneecap can be rotated 180 degrees with traditional joint replacement. However, this technique produces greater muscular and soft tissue trauma. It’s no wonder that surgeons and patients should weigh the benefits and risks before deciding which method to use.
Minimally invasive joint replacement surgery reduces internal disruption. A 3-to-6-inch incision allows the surgeon to lift and push aside muscles, ligaments, tendons, bones and soft tissue instead of cutting through them. Surgeons can even raise and push aside the kneecap.
Nurses report a noticeable difference in post-operative pain, bleeding and rehabilitation in their patients who have the minimally invasive method done. Yet, surgeons require specialized training and equipment to perform surgeries successfully.
Many experienced surgeons are scheduled months out. Who has time to learn a new method, especially when you’ve become proficient in the traditional approach?
Yet, evidence-based surgeons understand that minimally invasive joint replacements are becoming the gold standard. They see the benefits of this treatment modality for their patients and have invested the time and resources to become qualified in this type of procedure.
All joint replacement surgeries aim to reconstruct a malfunctioning joint safely and effectively. Surgeons aim for long-lasting pain reduction and joint function. If appropriately performed, both methods typically achieve these goals. However, minimally invasive modalities show additional benefits that reduce the following:
Not only do providers and patients observe these reductions, but they also report the following improvements:
Minimally invasive techniques boast improved short-term outcomes. However, the long-term success of both procedures depends on the appropriate size selection of the prosthetic and the alignment of the implant.
Advanced surgical techniques and instrumentation allow most people to be candidates for minimally invasive joint replacement. There is no weight, size or age limit. Yet, the implant and incision size directly depend on the patient’s physical features.
For example, patients with larger bones require a longer incision. Obese patients may need a larger opening for adequate exposure to the damaged joint. Regardless of incision size, the minimally invasive technique minimizes muscle and tendon disruption.
Joint revisions or replacements requiring more extensive visualization necessitate the traditional approach. Minimally invasive surgical methods are more challenging to perform. This technique requires surgeons with specialized training and facilities with the appropriate equipment.
Smaller incisions without technical adjustments often result in poor outcomes and increased complications. So, traditional joint replacement is recommended if a specialized surgeon is unavailable in your community.
Patients and practitioners wonder if there are qualified surgeons in their communities. Since this surgery requires additional training, specialized equipment and an educated team, look for orthopedic practices that support minimally invasive joint replacements.
At our hospital, we have the resources to offer this innovative joint replacement procedure. Striving for excellence, our providers have pursued additional training, so your patients can quickly get back to their routines. Does your practice need access to minimally invasive joint replacement surgeries? Refer your patient to our hospital, and we’ll take care of the rest.
“Joint Replacement Surgery: Health Information Basics for You and Your Family.” NIH: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 2023, Joint Replacement Surgery: Health Information Basics for You and Your Family | NIAMS.
“Historical overview of hip arthroplasty: From humble beginnings to a high-tech future.” NIH: National Library of Medicine, 2021, Historical overview of hip arthroplasty: From humble beginnings to a high-tech future – PMC.
Subscribe to our MEDforum e-newsletter for the latest guidelines and information from Up Health.
