Minimally invasive surgery

Less Pain:
Trauma caused by tissue damage causes pain and swelling during part of the normal healing process. Since less invasive surgery requires far less cutting and dissection of normal tissues, the end result is less pain during recovery.^1,2

Faster Recovery:
With minimally invasive surgery, the time needed in the hospital to gain independence and achieve comfort is shortened considerably.

Traditional vs. minimally invasive hip replacement surgery¹
The following chart shows some general advantages to hip replacement surgery using minimally invasive surgical techniques when compared to traditional hip replacement surgery.

	Traditional Hip Replacement Surgery	Minimally Invasive Hip Replacement Surgery
Incision Size	8-10 inches	3-4 inches
Hospital Stay	5-7 days	3-4 days
Recovery Time	12 weeks	4-6 weeks

Who is a candidate for minimally invasive hip replacement?

Generally, anyone can benefit from a less invasive surgical technique. In some cases, due to the size or weight of the patient, the incision must be extended, but the trauma to the surrounding tissues will still be reduced when compared to traditional surgery. Your orthopaedic surgeon will try to keep the incision as small as possible, but there are times when the patient is best served by a larger incision.

Minimally invasive hip replacement can have you back on your feet faster than ever before. With stronger, potentially longer-lasting implants like OXINIUM^◊ Oxidized Zirconium implants, you increase your ability to achieve greater range of motion in your hip as well as your ability to enjoy more of life’s activities.

Talk to your orthopaedic surgeon to determine if minimally invasive hip replacement and OXINIUM^◊ implants are the right options for you.

^1.Swanson, Todd V., M.D., Hanna, Rammy S., M.D., “Advantages of Cementless THA Using Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique”. Exhibit at 2003 AAOS Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

^2. Chimento, GF, Sculco, TP. “Minimally Invasive Total Hip Replacement”. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2001;11(4):270-3.