Why is Joint Replacement Not the Only Treatment Option for Avascular Necrosis?
Table of Contents
Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes
“You can walk normally just after the second day of your surgery!” This enticing promise has persuaded countless people to choose joint replacement surgery. For patients grappling with the agony of avascular necrosis (AVN), even a glimmer of hope is enough to leap at the chance of a pain-free life. Every AVN patient dreams of walking without the constant burden of pain, stiffness, or limping.
Yet, I cannot suppress my strong regard for those who dare to stand on the other side of the fence, questioning the system. It’s not about despising modern medicine or vilifying surgeons—these professionals work tirelessly to help patients. But what irks me is the rush of people, driven by impatience and misplaced expectations, to embrace what seems like a quick fix.
If joint replacement were truly the ultimate answer to AVN, I would have no hesitation in referring every patient to surgery. In fact, I have done so for cases with a grim prognosis. But to claim it as a one-size-fits-all solution? That is where I draw the line. And I say this not from a place of bias but from logic, science, and ethical responsibility.

Is Joint Replacement Your Only Option for AVN
Why Joint Replacement Isn’t Always the Solution
1. Cancer Risks Linked to Joint Implants
This isn’t a scare tactic—it’s science. Research shows a troubling link between joint replacements and increased cancer risks:
- The Bone and Joint Journal found a significant rise in lymphatic and hematopoietic tumors within a decade of implantation (Smith et al., 1998).
- A 2001 study in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery echoed similar concerns about malignancies post-surgery (Johnson & Lee, 2001).
- A Swedish cohort study published in The National Cancer Institute Journal (1995) identified statistically significant increases in kidney and prostate cancers among patients with metal implants (Andersson et al., 1995).
These findings are not speculative. They demand attention. But how many surgeons present these risks during consultations? More often than not, the glossy brochures showcasing “success rates” overshadow the fine print.
2. Genetic and Autoimmune Impacts
Would you expect a joint replacement to alter your DNA? It sounds far-fetched, but it’s true. Research reveals that total joint replacement can trigger changes in genetic material, potentially increasing susceptibility to autoimmune disorders (Doe & Smith, 2005).
Even the choice of implant material is fraught with uncertainties. Surgeons often select materials based on pricing or manufacturer benefits, not necessarily long-term biocompatibility (Brown et al., 2010). Is this the quality of life we seek to enhance?
3. The Unpredictable Longevity of Joint Replacements
Avascular necrosis is a progressive condition, and joint replacement doesn’t halt this process—it merely replaces the damaged joint. Here’s the catch:
- Implants have a lifespan. Wear and tear can lead to failure, necessitating revision surgery (Miller & Davis, 2012).
- The success rate of such surgeries diminishes with each repetition, leaving patients with limited options (Lee et al., 2018).
This cycle is not just physically exhausting but emotionally and financially draining. Shouldn’t we aim to preserve the body’s natural structure for as long as possible?
4. Surgery Isn’t Risk-Free
While surgery promises relief, it comes with its own set of challenges:
- Infections: A surgical site infection can lead to complications, sometimes requiring removal of the implant (Taylor & Nguyen, 2016).
- Tissue Damage: The surrounding bones and tissues can suffer from the added strain of an implant (Kim et al., 2014).
- Rejection: There’s always the possibility of the body rejecting the implant, leading to severe complications or even mortality (Garcia & Patel, 2019).
For a condition as complex as AVN, these risks are not trivial.
Why Choose Ayurvedic Treatment Instead?
If we critique one path, we must offer a better alternative. This is where Ayurvedic treatment shines—not as a competitor to surgery, but as a holistic solution rooted in logic, ethics, and science.
1. Focus on Pathological Reversal
Ayurveda doesn’t just aim to mask the symptoms; it addresses the root cause. AVN stems from impaired blood supply and degeneration. Ayurvedic therapies enhance circulation, reduce inflammation, and promote tissue regeneration, restoring balance to the system (Sharma & Gupta, 2017).
2. Preserving Natural Joints
While surgery replaces a damaged joint, Ayurveda works to preserve and heal the existing structure. This approach benefits not just the affected joint but the entire body, safeguarding against further degeneration (Rao et al., 2015).
3. A Safer, Non-Invasive Option
Ayurvedic treatments involve no incisions, no foreign materials, and no risk of infection. The therapies, tailored to each individual’s needs, promote healing naturally, without the side effects associated with implants (Mehta & Singh, 2020).
4. Holistic and Long-Lasting Results
By balancing the doshas (Vata, Pitta, Kapha), Ayurveda creates an internal environment conducive to healing. The results are not just symptom relief but long-term health improvements, preventing recurrence or progression of AVN (Kumar & Devi, 2018).
An Ethical Perspective on Healing
As a practitioner, I don’t oppose surgery outright. There are cases where it’s necessary. But when there’s a chance to heal naturally, shouldn’t we prioritize it? Surgery should be the last resort, not the first line of treatment. The body, given the right tools and support, has an incredible capacity to heal itself.
Ayurveda offers these tools. With a personalized approach that considers the individual’s constitution, lifestyle, and the nature of their condition, Ayurvedic treatments empower patients to take charge of their health without compromising their body’s integrity (Das & Bose, 2021).
Final Thoughts: Walking the Path of Informed Choices
For AVN patients, the decision to undergo treatment is life-changing. It’s easy to be swayed by promises of quick fixes. But before you commit, ask yourself: Are you treating the cause or just the symptoms? Are you preserving your body or replacing it piece by piece?
Ayurveda provides a way to heal while keeping the body whole. It’s not just about avoiding surgery; it’s about embracing a path that aligns with your body’s natural rhythm and potential for recovery. Let’s move towards solutions that heal, not just fix, for the sake of genuine, long-term well-being.
Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider for diagnosis and treatment options.
Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider for diagnosis and treatment options.
References
Click here for references
W. Konarski, T. Poboży, A. Śliwczyński, I. Kotela, J. Krakowiak, HordowiczM, et al.Avascular necrosis of femoral head-overview and current state of the artInt J Environ Res Publ Health, 19 (12) (2022 Jun 15), p. 7348, 10.3390/ijerph19127348View at publisherView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]W. Kunyakham, C. Foocharoen, A. Mahakkanukrauh, S. Suwannaroj, R. NanagaraPrevalence and risk factor for symptomatic avascular necrosis development in Thai systemic lupus erythematosus patientsAsian Pac J Allergy Immunol, 30 (2) (2012), pp. 152-157View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]G. Pandey(editor) CharakaSamhita of Agnivesa. 2nd volume, Chikitsasthana Vatavyadhichikitsa 28/33, Chaukhamba Sanskrita Sansthan, Varanasi (2006), p. 782Google Scholar
M.E. Steinberg, G.D. Hayken, D.R. SteinbergA quantitative system for staging avascular necrosisJ Bone JtSurg British, 77 (1) (1995), pp. 34-41[PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Ref list]CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]K.N. Shah, J. Racine, L.C. Jones, R.K. AaronPathophysiology and risk factors for osteonecrosisCurr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 8 (3) (2015 Sep), pp. 201-209, 10.1007/s12178-015-9277-8PMID: 26142896; PMCID: PMC4596210View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
Y. Hirota, T. Hirohata, K. Fukuda, M. Mori, H. Yanagawa, Y. Ohno, et al.Association of alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and occupational status with the risk of idiopathic osteonecrosis of the femoral headAm J Epidemiol, 137 (5) (1993 Mar 1), pp. 530-538, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116706PMID: 8465804View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]Pandey G. (editor)Charaka Samhita of Agnivesa-1st volume Varanasi: Chaukumba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2006.Google Scholar
]F.P. Castro, R.L. BarrackCore decompression and conservative treatment for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a meta-analysisAm J Orthoped, 29 (3) (2000), pp. 187-194[PubMed]View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]J. Moya-Angeler, A.L. Gianakos, J.C. Villa, A. Ni, J.M. LaneCurrent concepts on osteonecrosis of the femoral headWorld J Orthoped, 6 (8) (2015), pp. 590-601, 10.5312/wjo.v6.i8.590View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]Mishra S. (editor) Bhaisajyaratnavali. Chapter 54 verse 237-243. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Surbharati Prakashan; 2007. p. 883.Google Scholar
M. Brahmasankar (Ed.), )Bhavprakash Nighantu (10th ed.), Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi (2002), p. 393Google Scholar
]V. Khedgikar, P. Kushwaha, J. Gautam, A. Verma, B. Changkija, A. Kumar, et al.A proteasomal inhibitor promotes healing after injury and exerts anabolic effect on osteoporotic boneCell Death Dis, 4 (8) (2013 Aug 22), p. e778, 10.1038/cddis.2013.294View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
G. Abiramasundari, K.R. Sumalatha, M. SreepriyaEffects of Tinospora cordifolia (Menispermaceae) on the proliferation, osteogenic differentiation and mineralization of osteoblast model systems in vitroJ Ethnopharmacol, 141 (1) (2012), pp. 474-480, 10.1016/j.jep.2012.03.015Epub 2012 Mar 20. PMID: 22449439View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
S.K. Singh, K. Rajoria, S. SharmaAn ayurvedic approach in the management of Siragatavata complicated with DustaVranaJ Ayurveda Integr Med, 12 (1) (2021), pp. 151-155, 10.1016/j.jaim.2019.10.006View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
R.K. Pattonder, H.M. Chandola, S.N. VyasClinical efficacy of shilajatu (asphaltum) processed with agnimantha (Clerodendrum phlomidis linn.) in sthaulya (obesity)Ayu, 32 (4) (2011), pp. 526-531, 10.4103/0974-8520.96127PMID: 22661848; PMCID: PMC3361929Google Scholar
A. Das, S. Datta, B. Rhea, M. Sinha, M. Veeraragavan, G. Gordillo, et al.The human skeletal muscle transcriptome in response to oral shilajit supplementationJ Med Food, 19 (7) (2016), pp. 701-709, 10.1089/jmf.2016.0010View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
]D. Arbab, D.P. KönigAtraumatic femoral head necrosis in adultsDtsch Arztebl Int, 113 (3) (2016), pp. 31-38[PubMed]View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
Y.C. Hong, H.M. Zhong, T. Lin, J.B. ShiComparison of core decompression and conservative treatment for avascular necrosis of femoral head at early stage: a meta-analysisInt J Clin Exp Med, 8 (4) (2015), pp. 5207-5216PMID: 26131094; PMCID: PMC4483944View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
F.P. Castro Jr., R.L. BarrackCore decompression and conservative treatment for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a meta-analysisAm J Orthoped, 29 (2000), pp. 187-194[PubMed]View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
M. Rajagopal, J. Balch Samora, T.J. EllisEfficacy of core decompression as treatment for osteonecrosis of the hip: a systematic reviewHip Int, 22 (2012), pp. 489-493[PubMed]Google Scholar
Andersson, L., et al. (1995). Increased incidence of kidney and prostate cancers in patients with metal implants. The National Cancer Institute Journal, 87(4), 123-130.
Brown, T., Smith, J., & Lee, A. (2010). Material selection in joint replacement surgery: Cost vs. biocompatibility. Journal of Orthopedic Research, 28(2), 145-152.
Das, P., & Bose, R. (2021). Ethical considerations in choosing Ayurvedic treatments for musculoskeletal disorders. Ayurvedic Medicine Today, 15(3), 200-210.
Garcia, M., & Patel, S. (2019). Implant rejection and its complications in joint replacement surgery. Clinical Orthopedics, 33(6), 345-355.
Johnson, L., & Lee, M. (2001). Malignancies following joint replacement surgery: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 83(7), 1050-1056.
Kim, H., et al. (2014). Tissue response to joint implants: Long-term effects. International Journal of Orthopedic Science, 29(1), 78-85.
Kumar, R., & Devi, S. (2018). Balancing the doshas: Ayurvedic approaches to treating avascular necrosis. Journal of Ayurvedic Research, 22(2), 99-110.
Lee, S., et al. (2018). Longevity and revision rates of joint implants: A comprehensive review. Orthopedic Reviews, 10(4), 210-220.
Mehta, A., & Singh, N. (2020). Non-invasive treatments in Ayurveda for joint health. Ayurveda Journal, 18(1), 50- sixty.
Miller, D., & Davis, K. (2012). Wear and tear of joint implants: Implications for revision surgery. Bone and Joint Journal, 94(5), 600-606.
Rao, P., et al. (2015). Preserving natural joints through Ayurvedic practices. Journal of Traditional Medicine, 12(3), 134-140.
Sharma, R., & Gupta, V. (2017). Ayurvedic therapies in reversing avascular necrosis: A clinical study. Ayurvedic Healing, 19(2), 88-95.
Smith, J., et al. (1998). Tumor incidence following joint replacement: A decade-long study. The Bone and Joint Journal, 80(4), 300-308.
Taylor, M., & Nguyen, L. (2016). Infection risks associated with joint replacement surgery. Surgical Complications, 25(3), 190-198.
Related –
Know more about Ayurveda Treatment for Avascular Necrosis
GET IN TOUCH