LucyVanPelt
new member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2023
- Messages
- 11
- Age
- 53
- Country
United States
- Gender
- Female
Having my left THR on October 26, 2023. Once I am recovered from this one, I will have the right hip replaced.
My hips have been slowly "locking up" for years until now I have no range of motion on either side. I am getting around with forearm crutches. Found out three weeks ago that both hips are destroyed by arthritis and need replacing.
I have learned a lot about hip replacements lately. Our modern hip replacement surgery was invented by Dr. John Charnley in the U.K. in the 1960's. My mom had a right THR in 1977 while she was in her 50s. Her surgeon had studied under Dr. Charnley. She had a great recovery and walked without pain and without a limp for the rest of her life. Her implant showed no signs of wear after nearly 30 years. Her surgery was, of course, "traditional" and she had a very long incision on the side of her right leg.
My GP, whom I have had as my doctor since 2000, sent me to a "traditional" hip surgeon. When I went to see him, I brought up the subject of "Minimally Invasive Surgery." His immediate response was, "It's a gimmick! A 2-inch incision plus a 3-inch is still a 5-inch incision!"
He was referring to the SuperPath technique vs the Traditional technique. The SuperPath technique uses an anterior 2-inch incision to place the acetabulum cup and a posterior 3-inch incision to place the femoral stem. Today's Traditional technique uses a lateral 5-inch incision to do both.
There are 2 medical schools in my area and both of them are promoting the SuperPath technique. People are coming here from all over the world to get this newest type of THR. I want the very best, so I was puzzled why my doctor sent me to a "traditional" surgeon.
I called a friend who had a THR with the SuperPath technique and asked about her long term recovery. She is still having pain and must use her hands to lift her leg up into her car. She knows 2 other people who also had SuperPath THR and both of them also have pain and range of motion issues. One of them is already looking for another surgeon to get it re-done. All 3 of these people had different surgeons, but similar lousy outcomes.
Then I called a woman who had both hips replaced (12 weeks apart) about 3 years ago using the Traditional technique. She is doing great with no pain and no limp. She has a brand new life again.
The SuperPath appeals to my vanity. "We can give you a brand new hip with a 2-inch incision below your bikini line in the front and a 3-inch incision below your panty line in the back. We cut through less muscle so your recovery time is faster. (You'll have to forgive us if we cut that nerve on the front that governs being able to lift your leg into the car.)" However, the surgeon is hindered by the tiny incisions and must try and make up for not being able to see and get to everything by using robotics or x-ray imaging.
I wrote to my traditional surgeon about all this (through my medical phone app). He wrote back and said you may or may not have a good outcome using the SuperPath, but the outcome will ALWAYS be compared to the Gold Standard, which is the Traditional technique and what he still does. He said he chooses to use the traditional technique because of its track record of a good outcome and because of its reproducibility - meaning he can do exactly the same surgery on you, me, and the next person who needs it.
I am interested in the long-term results even if it takes a few more weeks of recovery. What good is it to recovery quickly if you're still in pain and don't get the results you are seeking?
I have shared all this to help someone who has the same questions I had. "New" does NOT always mean better, although we have been conditioned to believe that it does. Whatever decision you make for yourself, may you have a blessed outcome!
My hips have been slowly "locking up" for years until now I have no range of motion on either side. I am getting around with forearm crutches. Found out three weeks ago that both hips are destroyed by arthritis and need replacing.
I have learned a lot about hip replacements lately. Our modern hip replacement surgery was invented by Dr. John Charnley in the U.K. in the 1960's. My mom had a right THR in 1977 while she was in her 50s. Her surgeon had studied under Dr. Charnley. She had a great recovery and walked without pain and without a limp for the rest of her life. Her implant showed no signs of wear after nearly 30 years. Her surgery was, of course, "traditional" and she had a very long incision on the side of her right leg.
My GP, whom I have had as my doctor since 2000, sent me to a "traditional" hip surgeon. When I went to see him, I brought up the subject of "Minimally Invasive Surgery." His immediate response was, "It's a gimmick! A 2-inch incision plus a 3-inch is still a 5-inch incision!"
He was referring to the SuperPath technique vs the Traditional technique. The SuperPath technique uses an anterior 2-inch incision to place the acetabulum cup and a posterior 3-inch incision to place the femoral stem. Today's Traditional technique uses a lateral 5-inch incision to do both.
There are 2 medical schools in my area and both of them are promoting the SuperPath technique. People are coming here from all over the world to get this newest type of THR. I want the very best, so I was puzzled why my doctor sent me to a "traditional" surgeon.
I called a friend who had a THR with the SuperPath technique and asked about her long term recovery. She is still having pain and must use her hands to lift her leg up into her car. She knows 2 other people who also had SuperPath THR and both of them also have pain and range of motion issues. One of them is already looking for another surgeon to get it re-done. All 3 of these people had different surgeons, but similar lousy outcomes.
Then I called a woman who had both hips replaced (12 weeks apart) about 3 years ago using the Traditional technique. She is doing great with no pain and no limp. She has a brand new life again.
The SuperPath appeals to my vanity. "We can give you a brand new hip with a 2-inch incision below your bikini line in the front and a 3-inch incision below your panty line in the back. We cut through less muscle so your recovery time is faster. (You'll have to forgive us if we cut that nerve on the front that governs being able to lift your leg into the car.)" However, the surgeon is hindered by the tiny incisions and must try and make up for not being able to see and get to everything by using robotics or x-ray imaging.
I wrote to my traditional surgeon about all this (through my medical phone app). He wrote back and said you may or may not have a good outcome using the SuperPath, but the outcome will ALWAYS be compared to the Gold Standard, which is the Traditional technique and what he still does. He said he chooses to use the traditional technique because of its track record of a good outcome and because of its reproducibility - meaning he can do exactly the same surgery on you, me, and the next person who needs it.
I am interested in the long-term results even if it takes a few more weeks of recovery. What good is it to recovery quickly if you're still in pain and don't get the results you are seeking?
I have shared all this to help someone who has the same questions I had. "New" does NOT always mean better, although we have been conditioned to believe that it does. Whatever decision you make for yourself, may you have a blessed outcome!
Last edited: