Biomet Magnum/Recap vs. BHR survival rate

[tommyhip]

I have done some research on both BHR and the Biomet prosthesis as used by Dr. Gross. They seem to be similar in metallurgy and some research suggests that they may even be manufactured by the same company. However, the Australia Registry shows a failure rate for Biomet (assuming it's the same two components) as much higher than BHR. Can anyone explain this?  I would appreciate it. 

[MattJersey]

The device alone isn't the only factor, and may not even be the major factor. Others that come to mind:


Surgeon's skill and experience should contribute to getting the device positioned well. So a poor or poorly experienced surgeon may increase failure risk.


Patient selection: smaller sizes demand great care and precision in placement. Go back to surgeon skill.


Patient selection: hip dysplasia or other patient hip complications (e.g. bone density) may be a critical factor.


Patient compliance with recovery protocol, and subsequent activity levels.




The ASR De Puy device which was a big failure wasn't a total failure for all patients, and maybe underlines the surgeon placement factor in terms of criticality.


I would be comfortable with either the Biomet or the BHR that I have.



And a stupid question, sorry: presumably it is the Biomet resurfacing device, and not other hip replacements (THR devices)? Biomet Magnum may be a THR device with a possible recall (and Biomet then taken over by Zimmer if my quick read is correct). Biomet Conserve is the resurfacing device if memory serves. That might explain the failure rate.

[einreb]

I have done some research on both BHR and the Biomet prosthesis as used by Dr. Gross. They seem to be similar in metallurgy and some research suggests that they may even be manufactured by the same company. However, the Australia Registry shows a failure rate for Biomet (assuming it's the same two components) as much higher than BHR. Can anyone explain this?  I would appreciate it.

Its my understanding that the geometry and metallurgy of the two devices is very similar.  Its the uncemented aspect now that would be the biggest difference, but both caps seem to perform well installed correctly.


I looked for the document I had read on the Australian data explanation, but couldn't find it.  The point was that data was more a reflection of having an experienced surgeon rather than the device.  The biomet pool of data was smaller and the data was made up of a bunch of surgeons only doing a few surgeries.


Note... I think that does actually reflect poorly on the Biomet in how they may have rolled out he device or trained the surgeons in Australia.   i.e. you may be better off with a lousy device like the ASR installed by a good surgeon rather than a good device installed by a surgeon not skilled in resurfacing.  But I digress. :)


If you're looking at Dr Gross though, that is somewhat moot since his results are very good.

[Horse rider]

I am scheduled for bilateral surgery in a few weeks with Dr. Gross. Is the feeling of the group that the device he uses are good? I am a 54 year old woman and I want to return to my profession of training horses. Thanks for any thoughts.

[Horse rider]

I am a 54 year old woman and am scheduled for bilateral resurfacing with Dr. Gross in a few weeks. Is the general consensus that the device he uses is good?