FAQs

Patients are walking within hours of surgery. However I prefer patients to use a walker for at least the first week. You may be taking medicines that might cause dizziness and a fall can cause other problems. After the first week patients often switch to a cane or nothing. About half of patients still bring their walker to their 2 week visit because there are long hallways in clinic and it helps them to carry purses or other equipment, but they usually are not using them at home by this point. You will need a driver to take you home after surgery

For right knee surgery, average time to drive is about 4 weeks, for the left it is about 2 weeks. If patients are taking narcotic pain medication they cannot drive. For the right leg if they can rapidly and forcefully apply the brake pedal they can drive.

Absolutely and my patients do this all the time. I am a part of the March2Amillion campaign where hip and knee surgeons across the country are encouraging our patients who undergo a surgery and take little or no narcotics to tell their story. We give many medications that are not narcotic, some of which are new classes of drugs, to treat pain, swelling, and inflammation. The multi-modal pain medication strategy we use means that patients often do not need narcotics. We talk about my postop protocols at the preop appointment and I also keep this information on my website.

After surgery I use a multi-modal pain regimen, meaning I prescribe a cocktail of medications to treat pain in all the ways it can be experienced with narcotics being a last result. Steroids, NSAIDs, nerve medications, numbing medications and procedures, cryotherapy and compression as well as narcotics are all discussed and at the preop

The short answer is this is a deceptive marketing strategy without any proof of efficacy and a more expensive way to do a knee replacement.

The longer answer is that this is a customized knee made just for one patient. While there are some theoretical advantages to this, there is no proof this is better than any other type of knee replacement, though it is definitely more expensive causing patients to have to pay out of pocket many thousands of dollars extra. Keep in mind as well that a custom knee has no spare parts and cannot easily be fixed if problems arise. Additionally, there is no information about how the knee is balanced, if the surgeon during surgery wants to make changes to the plan nothing can be done.

The short answer is this, like the nano knee, is also a deceptive marketing technique. There is no proof, no research study, no available peer reviewed or published data that this is any better than the techniques I already use. Based on the available descriptions of the procedure this is very similar if not the same as what I already do. It is not a specific type of knee and none of the claims of the Jiffy Knee are supported by any medical evidence that I am aware of.

The longer answer is a bit more complex. In short, this is a branded “approach” to a knee replacement. The “approach” is how the surgeon enters the joint. There are several ways to get into the joint. Research studies and surgeons don’t agree that there is any best way to get into a knee and it probably depends on each patients anatomy and history of previous procedures. In fact a meta-analysis study (which is a powerful study that combines multiple previous studies) came out in late 2025 that analyzed each of the approaches a surgeon can use and concluded there are no clear advantages to any approach. Just like one car isn’t the best fit for each person, a thoughtful surgeon should adapt their strategy for each patient they see. This is what I do.
A Jiffy Knee is still a regular knee replacement. It is not a specific implant, any brand can be used. It does not last longer or and is not made out of any different materials. It does not guarantee the use of robotics and the accuracy that comes with technology.

It is a branded technique that surgeons use to get into or open up a knee. It does not guarantee any result and there is no literature or research studies to prove this is better than anything else. Surgeons must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to call themselves a Jiffy Knee Surgeon. To be clear, I am not one so I cannot completely describe the “technique” since I have not paid for that “training” and any real information about it is hidden behind a paywall. The claims are that this is a muscle-sparing technique that enables a faster recovery. I already perform muscle-sparing surgery (also known as a subvastus approach) as do many of my colleagues in the DFW Metroplex. Read more about this in the “What is a surgical approach” section.

There are several Jiffy Knee surgeons in the Dallas area and I know most of them personally. They were good surgeons both before and after learning this technique. If you are one of their patients, know they will take good care of you. If you are considering obtaining a Jiffy Knee because you think it is better, know this is nothing magical. This is all smoke and mirrors and there are no large data set research proven advantages, the claims are somewhat nebulous, and it is still a knee replacement.

Novel techniques do come about in surgery. And when they do if they are truly better then there should be evidence to support them. Also when new techniques are invented which help patients the usual course of action is that developers offer courses, publish or teach techniques that help patients for free rather than charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trademark.

This is how a surgeon accesses the knee. To replace your knee, your surgeon has to see inside it enough to get the old pieces out and the new knee pieces in. Tendons and muscles must be moved, cut, pulled, adjusted, or somehow pushed aside so the knee can be seen and worked on like opening the hood of your car.

There are lots of ways to do this, and no way is proven to be best. Studies on which is “better” fall on both sides and there is no agreement and a large meta-analysis which combines the results of multiple studies was published in late 2025. This showed conclusively that no approach has a clear advantage or disadvantage. Probably a better way to ask the question is which way is best for each patient?

And before I go into the approaches, don’t get hung up on where the incision is. The incision can be anywhere on the knee for any approach including using old incisions. The skin incision does not matter for the “approach” as this refers to how the joint itself is accessed, not where the skin cut is. It might be a smarter move to place an incision in one spot or another, but you can’t tell which approach was done just from the incision.

The “standard” approach is what is called the medial peripatellar (MPP) approach. This involves cutting into the knee next to the patellar tendon and along the quad tendon splitting it next to the VMO muscle slightly above the kneecap to get into the knee. No muscle is cut and no tendons are severed typically during this approach. This works for almost all patients. It can be used if patients have had multiple surgeries which makes seeing the knee harder. It can be extended.

A variant of the MPP is what’s called the “quad snip” where the quad tendon is cut and disconnected during the surgery and repaired at the end. This is rarely needed in first time knee replacements but is very helpful in severe knees or revision situations. Strangely enough, there is plenty of research to show that there is no difference in recovery time even when the tendon is cut because it is repaired properly and heals fine.

The next variant is what’s called a midvastus approach. The thought was by not cutting along a tendon (but not through it) like a MPP and cutting into a muscle instead that patients would heal faster. Some studies say this is better, some say it’s worse. I do not do this. I don’t like the idea of “cutting muscle” if there are no clear advantages. I find these bruise and bleed more than a MPP or subvastus approach.

Another variant has several names. Some call it subvastus, undervastus, subV, combover, going under the muscle, or something to that effect. These types of approaches have lots of marketing buzz and theoretically can disturb muscle or tendon less than other approaches. There was a wave of this decades ago but it fell out of favor for several reasons and is now coming back. The bottom half of the joint incision is the same as a MPP but the top half is different. Typically this involves cutting into the sheath over the vastus medialis muscle (or the inside quadricep muscle) and mobilizing it. Then all the quad muscles are pulled to the side and the joint is cut into. Again, there are some studies that show this may be better in the short term, but there are other studies that show it makes no difference or that surgeons using this approach are much more likely to put implants in the wrong place because it is harder to see what they are doing which is why it fell out of favor years ago.

What do I do? I try to consider each patient and what would work best for them and I follow the best available medical research. I lean towards a subvastus if the patient has good patellar mobility and I can see what I’m doing, or lean towards a MPP if they have had previous surgeries. I have never done a midvastus and only in the most severe situations would consider a quad snip. I want the best result for each patient and will be as minimally invasive as I can and use the wisdom acquired from doing thousands of cases to get the best result. I’m happy to discuss your preferences with you and what I think would be best in each situation. Also, know that I have patients that have had both a subvastus and a MPP with me and they do not clearly pick one side or another as being “easier” or “better.” At the end of the day, I do not think with my practices that the approach matters all that much. It is still a knee replacement and the surgical technique, medication regimen, patient factors, and approach all play into a successful recovery equally. Nothing is “Magic.”