Connect
← Return to Nanoknee, is it better or merely hype?
Discussion
Nanoknee, is it better or merely hype?
Joint Replacements | Last Active: Jun 2 8:58am | Replies (136)Comment receiving replies
To me it was worth it because I didn't suffer like I had previously 11 yrs. ago with my traditional left knee replacement. I have 2 friends who also had the Nano Knee & recommend it to me. My girlfriend had the traditional TNR , she claimed that her surgeon was the best & decided against the NanoKnee. Boy did she suffer! For the first 3 weeks, she was in severe pain & on Norco for over a month. She is finally getting better after 2 months. So, yes...either way, you will have probably have a good outcome...it just depends on your level of pain, opaites, & lots of painful PT. I decided to give up a trip & instead spend it on my body.
If you can afford it...do it...if not go for the traditional.
Replies to "To me it was worth it because I didn't suffer like I had previously 11 yrs...."
Connect
@judycat
If the choice were a traditional knee replacement or a Nano Knee, IMO the choice is easy: go for the Nano Knee.
However, there are many choices out there besides those two. I was in PT yesterday and there was another rehabbing TKR patient there who described her recovery pain as really "just some discomfort". She told me the name of her surgeon and I looked him up when I got home. He uses a subvastus method and a Mako/Triathlon replacement. Essentially a Nano Knee without the trademark.
To repeat my advice: find the best surgeon you can who does a minimally invasive method (subvastus/midvastus) whether called Jiffy Knee, Nano Knee or Steve's Knee with lots of experience doing it.