Surgeon questions benefits of new technique
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The apparent benefits of the revolutionary technique for hip replacement surgery were questioned yesterday.
Angus Wallace, professor of orthopaedic surgery at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, said there were doubts over how long the replacement hips would last. "There is some serious concern by orthopaedic surgeons that minimally invasive hip replacements might in the medium term give poorer results for patients," he said. Evidence showed that cemented hips lasted better than uncemented ones. The new technique did not use cement.
In addition, the prosthesis had to be fitted in the correct position and that was more difficult when using the keyhole technique. "Until a large series of cases has been reported, many of us are concerned that this is currently an untried procedure. It takes five years to tell whether it is effective and even in the US they have not yet got that length of experience.
"It may be a step forward but the way it has been done has not been thought through. The surgeons should have waited until they had done 100 cases and then reported the results. Instead they are creating in the minds of the general public the idea that this is a super- duper new treatment."
Last month one of the world's leading experts on hip replacement surgery, Cecil Rorabeck, of the University of Western Ontario, Canada, told the annual conference of the British Orthopaedic Association in Birmingham that the new technique was less likely to give a good result than the standard hip replacement, which involves a much longer stay in hospital.
"There was a fair degree of agreement from the floor that he was speaking common sense," Professor Wallace said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments