The second blog that I found myself reading is actually About.com’s section on orthopedics. I read an interesting post about minimally invasive procedures, and decided to share my opinion with the author, Dr. Jonathan Cluett. Again, the full text of my comment can be found below.
“Otis Med: Shape Matching Custom Fit Total Knee Replacement”
Comment:
Dr. Tarlow,
Very interesting post. I just recently stumbled upon your blog, so let me begin by saying that I am very grateful to read the thoughts of a surgeon who clearly cares very much about providing the best, and sometimes newest treatments for his patients. I am currently an undergrad at the University of Southern California and I am very interested in pursuing a career in surgery, particularly orthopedics.
So as for your post, I have a few questions regarding knee replacement surgery. You mentioned in your post that in a traditional replacement, the knee is aligned with its axis perpendicular to a line running from hip to ankle. Is a normal knee not always aligned like this? As far as I understood, this is the driving concept behind the Otis Med system, but it seems to me that most knees ought to be pretty close to this ideal that is used in the traditional replacement. In other words, is “customization” really worth the two or three degrees that a patient’s knee may be off by? As you said, the majority of traditional knee replacements can be expected to last several decades.Additionally, why is it that the Otis Med system looks at the degenerated knee and tries to reconstruct it to pick a replacement? Wouldn't it be easier to look at the healthy knee and assume symmetry? That way, no computer reconstruction would be necessary.
Forgive me if my comments seem uninformed or off-base. This is all very interesting to me, so I'm just trying to understand as much as I can.
Thanks,
JDM
“Are surgeries done through small incisions better?”
Comment:
Dr. Cluett,
This is a topic that has interested me for quite some time now. It seems to me that surgeons are constantly on the look out for ways to do less and less invasive surgery. In fact, I have even read about natural-orifice surgeries being performed on patients who really don't want scars. But what intrigues me the most is that often times these minimally invasive surgeries (particularly orthopedic ones, it seems) are very difficult for surgeons to perform, and thus increase the risk of surgical error. Do you think that this is indeed the case? Take, for example, a mini-hip replacement. I have read that there is concern about the ultimate alignment of the prosthesis with this technique.
Other minimally invasive surgeries, though, I feel are done because of a greater understanding of human anatomy. The Quad-sparing knee replacement provides an excellent. This procedure works around the quadriceps instead of through it so that the new joint can be better stabilized post-op. I think that it should be reasons like this, not cosmetic ones, that lead surgeons to create new surgical techniques. Thoughts?
