The recent article by Carol Ostrom reviews several topics in hip replacement surgery. I have to complement Ms. Ostrom with providing a fair and balanced approach to several different issues including incision length, different approaches (anterior, lateral, and posterior), and hip resurfacing. As she points out, there are pluses and minuses to each alternative and it should be noted that there was recent work presented from the Mayo Clinic, as noted in one of my previous blogs, comparing the two-incision approach to a single-incision posterior approach. In that particular study. The posterior approach led to less muscle damage and quicker recovery when compared to the two-incision approach. Having said that, surgeons that are skilled at the two-incision approach can achieve very good results. The pluses and minuses of hip resurfacing have been discussed in my previous blogs and again, I think that this remains a procedure with fewer indications now that total hip replacement can use large metal-on-metal heads to obtain the same benefits as hip resurfacing with a more familiar and durable procedure. Hopefully, other authors will follow the example of Ms. Ostrom and research their subject, pointing out the upside and downside of new technology and inventions so that the consumer/patient can be better informed and ask questions of their healthcare provider.