INTRODUCTION: The introduction of minimally invasive techniques for hip replacement into clinical practice has been driven by the perceived benefits of smaller incisions, shorter in-patient stays and faster rehabilitation. This may be at the cost of higher complication rates. The purpose of this study was to explore the opinions and priorities of patients in relation to these techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in an elective out-patient setting. RESULTS: Of 44 patients approached, 36 agreed to participate. From most important to least important, patients rated the following items in order: 'rate of complications'; 'implant survival'; 'length of rehabilitation'; 'time in hospital' and 'length of scar'. Despite this, 21 of 35 (60%) responders stated they would accept the offer of minimally invasive techniques if made. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appear to prioritise long-term outcomes and low complication rates over the shorter scars, reduced in-patient stay and reduced rehabilitation times potentially offered by minimally invasive hip arthroplasty. Despite this, the technique remains popular among patients.
INTRODUCTION: The introduction of minimally invasive techniques for hip replacement into clinical practice has been driven by the perceived benefits of smaller incisions, shorter in-patient stays and faster rehabilitation. This may be at the cost of higher complication rates. The purpose of this study was to explore the opinions and priorities of patients in relation to these techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in an elective out-patient setting. RESULTS: Of 44 patients approached, 36 agreed to participate. From most important to least important, patients rated the following items in order: 'rate of complications'; 'implant survival'; 'length of rehabilitation'; 'time in hospital' and 'length of scar'. Despite this, 21 of 35 (60%) responders stated they would accept the offer of minimally invasive techniques if made. CONCLUSIONS:Patients appear to prioritise long-term outcomes and low complication rates over the shorter scars, reduced in-patient stay and reduced rehabilitation times potentially offered by minimally invasive hip arthroplasty. Despite this, the technique remains popular among patients.
Authors: Daniel J Berry; Richard A Berger; John J Callaghan; Lawrence D Dorr; Paul J Duwelius; Mark A Hartzband; Jay R Lieberman; Dana C Mears Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Luke Ogonda; Roger Wilson; Pooler Archbold; Marie Lawlor; Patricia Humphreys; Seamus O'Brien; David Beverland Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.284