The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:699-700.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00126
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow [Related Articles]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berry, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berry, D. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Editorial
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Editorial

"Minimally Invasive" Total Hip Arthroplasty

Daniel J. Berry, MD, Associate Editor

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

"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.

In this issue of The Journal, Ogonda et . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
T. P. Vail and J. J. Callaghan
Minimal Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., December 1, 2007; 15(12): 707 - 715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br Med BullHome page
A. Mahmood, M. S. Zafar, I. Majid, N. Maffulli, and J. Thompson
Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: a quantitative review of the literature
Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2007; 84(1): 37 - 48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
I. D. Learmonth
Total Hip Replacement and the Law of Diminishing Returns
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2006; 88(7): 1664 - 1673.
[Full Text] [PDF]