THR Survival Rates for patients under 30

[Pat Walter]

We always talk about hip resurfacing being better than a THR, but seldom have statistics to show the advantage.  Here is a small study about cemented THRs in patients under 30 with the retention rates.

http://www.hipsforyou.com/survival-rates-cemented-thr-young-patients-2013.php

Basically "The 10 survival rate was 90% and 15-year survival rate was 82% . None of our 13 subsequent revisions needed a re-revision within 10 years after re-implantation."

This illustrates the fact that THRs are not better than HRs as most surgeons suggest.  Also supports my theory that there is no PERFECT HIP REPLACEMENT DEVICE.  Hip devices are man made to replace God made joints.  Tough to make them perfect in any form, THR or Hip Resurfacing. 

We choose what we feel is the best for us when we need surgery and a replacement.  There is no guarantee that it will last our lifetime.  Hopefully it will, but at least the studies help us understand there is no perfect device.  We choose the best surgeons to use the device with the best outcomes at the time we need a hip replacement.  The results for devices take years to prove how good or bad they are.  So many people email me and/or post they are looking for the perfect device that is guaranteed to last a life time.  Unfortunately, there is none - but some perform better than others. The medical studies help to educate us so we can make good decisions.

Pat

[Dannywayoflife]

Interesting. I'd be interested as to a comparison between Uncemented thr's and resurfacing though as the default thr's seem to be cementless.

[Mike D]

I don't think those figures are too bad, considering how old they are.
They relate to a 16 year span of THR's starting in 1988- which is 26 years ago. Things have changed vastly since then.

[Jason0411]

It would interesting to see when the revisions were required.

82% at 15 years does not compare too well with McMinns 15 year figures for BHR.

[Tim Bratten]

The way I understand it, the high revision rate for older model THRs (especially in younger patients) was mainly due to osteolysis that was caused by debris from the plastics that were used. Certainly this problem was one of the main reason doctors decided to pursue other options, like hip resurfacing.  However, it doesn't seem like the data from these older model THRs has much to say about how well the newer model THRs (e.g. using new types of ceramic or new types of cross-linked polythene) will hold up. At least in theory, these materials should work better than the older model  polythene on metal.

[Dannywayoflife]

Quite right tim. I would like to see some specific data from more modern more finessed designs of thr in young people