Frequently Asked Questions - All FAQs

FAQs - All FAQs
It is not necessary, but when available they exist of muscle strengthening exercises, gaining mobility of the hip joint (can be painful!) and learning to walk with crutches. This can fasten up the postoperative revalidation.
It is not necessary, but when available they exist of muscle strengthening exercises, gaining mobility of the hip joint (can be painful!) and learning to walk with crutches. This can fasten up the postoperative revalidation.
It is not necessary, but when available they exist of muscle strengthening exercises, gaining mobility of the hip joint (can be painful!) and learning to walk with crutches. This can fasten up the postoperative revalidation.
In a classic total hip replacement the length of incision is between 8 – 15 cm (3-6 inch), depending on the difficulty of the operation (e.g. revision surgery and obesity of the patient). In the resurfacing procedure the incision is longer (15 – 30 cm/6-12 inch) because of technical-anatomical reasons (saving the femoral head). The length of incision has no influence in the postoperative rehabilitation.
Minimal invasive surgery is not applicable to resurfacing today. Minimal invasive surgery in total hip corresponds with a lot of early complications (17%). The prosthesis placement is often “blind”. A reduction of the incision to “minimal incision” is done by everybody. The 2-incision minimal invasive technique is disregarded by most of the surgeons.
In a classic total hip replacement the length of incision is between 8 – 15 cm (3-6 inch), depending on the difficulty of the operation (e.g. revision surgery and obesity of the patient). In the resurfacing procedure the incision is longer (15 – 30 cm/6-12 inch) because of technical-anatomical reasons (saving the femoral head). The length of incision has no influence in the postoperative rehabilitation.
Minimal invasive surgery is not applicable to resurfacing today. Minimal invasive surgery in total hip corresponds with a lot of early complications (17%). The prosthesis placement is often “blind”. A reduction of the incision to “minimal incision” is done by everybody. The 2-incision minimal invasive technique is disregarded by most of the surgeons.
No! A bigger incision does not mean that there will be more damage to the muscular structures. On the contrary, if you need a bigger incision to get better exposure, the placement of the implant can be done more precisely. Even with an incision of 30 cm you are able to walk well after 24 hours.
No! A bigger incision does not mean that there will be more damage to the muscular structures. On the contrary, if you need a bigger incision to get better exposure, the placement of the implant can be done more precisely. Even with an incision of 30 cm you are able to walk well after 24 hours.
No! A bigger incision does not mean that there will be more damage to the muscular structures. On the contrary, if you need a bigger incision to get better exposure, the placement of the implant can be done more precisely. Even with an incision of 30 cm you are able to walk well after 24 hours.
For the resurfacing procedure I always use the posterolateral approach for technical reasons. For a classic total hip replacement I changed after having performed 1800 procedures from lateral to posterolateral approach as well. The posterolateral approach does have many advantages: the abductors (gluteus medius muscle) responsible for normal gait remains intact, so less patients suffer from permanent abnormal gait after hip prosthesis. There is a much better view to place the components in a more correctly way (very important for revision surgery). There will be less repetitive muscle damage in revision surgery; there are fewer patients with complaints of trochanteritis (irritation of the bursa) compared to the lateral approach. The only disadvantage of the posterolateral approach is the larger incidence of dislocations in inexperienced hands / learning curve.
For the resurfacing procedure I always use the posterolateral approach for technical reasons. For a classic total hip replacement I changed after having performed 1800 procedures from lateral to posterolateral approach as well. The posterolateral approach does have many advantages: the abductors (gluteus medius muscle) responsible for normal gait remains intact, so less patients suffer from permanent abnormal gait after hip prosthesis. There is a much better view to place the components in a more correctly way (very important for revision surgery). There will be less repetitive muscle damage in revision surgery; there are fewer patients with complaints of trochanteritis (irritation of the bursa) compared to the lateral approach. The only disadvantage of the posterolateral approach is the larger incidence of dislocations in inexperienced hands / learning curve.