Having read as much data as I could lay my hands on I have come to the conclusion that having had the bhr installed by Mr Treacy when I was 28 I will probably need a redo at some point however I'm confident that this will last me till I have slowed down ;)

Having seen that the thr's made from the same alloy can last over 40 years is very very encoraging

Dannywayoflife and Canadian-Ice, I had been pressing this issue early on in my rehab because my own investigation led me to believe that the BHR (properly installed in a good candidate) is going to be unaffected by any level of activity, despite reports implying that activity level was directly related to lifespan of hip resurfacing devices. No one was ever investigating the subject when considering"properly implanted" resurfacing devices.

As usual, Pat Walter came through to shed light by collecting information from top surgeons on the subject. Visit Mr. McMinn's website to hear some of his interviews on the subject. When asked by the late Vicky Marlow about what high impact sport is doing to the BHR's that he implanted (dating back 12 years at the time I believe) his reply was "absolutely nothing!"

So to beat the drum from this site, find a documented top surgeon to implant your resurfacing device and it will work for at least 15 years.

And there is so much evidence now that the few cases that result in failure (or revision) can be traced back to surgeon error, either due to poorly implanted devices or poor patient selection.
Except for the rare metal sensitivity, a failure will be caused by your body falling apart around the device rather than the device failing (which would happen with your native hip as well).

You can find all the answers now on this website.

Chuckm

Chukm - loved the way you summed that up.

Cool having TheMcMinnCentre on board.  Not sure they knew what they were getting into with a bunch of nerdy HR enthusiasts spending their day foruming about this stuff.  Maybe Hern got a job working for The McMinnCenter,  8)

In all serisousnees, I think having a surgeon or surgeon's rep with the knowledge and experience on the forum will only make these discussions more useful and engaging.  Look at how much "press" this topic got. 

The url for the McMinn recent video is here:

http://www.surfacehippy.info/mcminn-lecture-bhr-2013.php

I also appreciate having comments by the McMinn Center.  It gives the members another source of excellent information and comments.

Thank You for your help.

Pat

Average  (175lbs) Male. Are you all tiny in Canada? I am an average Male (255 lbs) My perfectly average 14 year old Prop forward is a mere 210 lbs and my runt of the litter 10 year old is a mere 118lbs.  ;)

I just look to my Brother for Logevity of BHR, he is coming up to 14 years we think but he can't really remember when.
He had his left hip done by Mr McMinn and has done Karate and worked 6 days a week in the catering industry ever since.

Jas

Ha I think your slightly above average in size terms then jas.  ;D it's probably all the Viking DNA we northerner's have in us  ;D

Bugger and I thought I lived in Lilliput ;D

Just thinkin', if there is a lower rate of revision for BHR patients after age 60 (99% vs. 98%), wouldn't that suggest wear/impact has some small affect?

Btw Danny, wondering how your recovery is coming along, given your interest in MMA and running?

Quote from: Canadian-Ice on August 07, 2013, 03:42:26 PM

Just thinkin', if there is a lower rate of revision for BHR patients after age 60 (99% vs. 98%), wouldn't that suggest wear/impact has some small affect?

Canadian-Ice could be -  I think could also be that the 60 yr olds have a lower life expectancy? - there is a greater chance of their implant outliving them thus creating the small positive effect in revision rate. 

Quote from: Canadian-Ice on August 07, 2013, 03:42:26 PM

Just thinkin', if there is a lower rate of revision for BHR patients after age 60 (99% vs. 98%), wouldn't that suggest wear/impact has some small affect?

Btw Danny, wondering how your recovery is coming along, given your interest in MMA and running?

I think the difference was because of the type of issue that caused the hip to be resurfaced in the first place. I think that mr McMinn said in an interview it was because of the patients with AVN.

My recovery is going fine thanks! Still not running purely because I'm still too heavy. I am grinding judo 2-3 times a week and 95% of the time my hip doesn't hold me back. I've said it quite a lot on here recently my job and the hours I work are what is keeping me from returning to full fitness (60-75hrs a week) :( I'm looking for a better job however and hopefully if sucsessfull will be able to cut 20lbs and get back in top shape. Mind I still have a resting heart rate in the low 40's ;)

Hi Danny,

Well it's pretty cool what you're doing. Maybe someday you can post some YT videos of your workouts.

Once I loose my gut I will deffo! ;)

Quote from: chuckm on August 01, 2013, 11:47:09 AM
Hi TheMcMinnCentre, do you know how those 10-15 year statistics would compare to a similar cohort who still have their native hips? I always wondered which is more likely, a BHR patient needing a revision, or a native hip owner needing their first hip arthroplasty. If 95.6% of BHR patients are surviving without revisions to THR can the native hip population be that durable as well? I guess you could call it a native hip revision rate?

Chuckm

Chuck,

That comparison, revision of a resurfaced hip vs. a healthy hip needing to be replaced at some time in the next 15 years is not a good way of looking at it.  Of course all of us would prefer to have a natural healthy hip, a more realistic thing to compare would be resurfacing revisions vs. total hip replacement revisions.  At least you are looking at a population that has known hip issues.   Also you have to consider what difference in quality of life we are looking at for those 15 years and beyond.  My doctor has given me one restriction " You'r 50 years old, use common sense for what a 50 year old is capable of doing." 

Hi Neild5, thanks for your opinion that the information is not useful to you.

You are like many who have gone through resurfacing. It was a wake up call for you to change your active lifestyle. Pat Walter (our webmaster here) has implied a similar opinion to yours as to what this data means to her and I totally respect her opinion - "Be conservative and your hips will last longer." But that is a given - resurfaced or not. I'm not sure how you define acting 50 for yourself but my definition is to be active if you can be and I'm not 50 yet. Many of us had our hips resurfaced just so we could return to our active lives. Getting hip resurfacing was an attempt to "fix" our hip problems.

So how better to compare how close to being "fixed" we are than by comparing the durability of our hips to people who don't even have hip problems. And while this thread has not given hard statistics about the comparison, it does shed light for many of us about the risks of returning to high activity.

Here's an analogy: If I my car broke down and needed a repair, I know it wouldn't break down again if I never drove it after it was repaired. But I like to know how well the repair will work. Do I compare it to how well another repair method lasts? I might before I selected the type repair and mechanic. And I also would like that if I were selling that repair method. But as the end user, I want to know if the repair is as good new. So if statistics show a particular mechanic using a good replacement parts is lasting just as good as a car that didn't have that problem, it really is useful to me. Maybe not so to you.

Also, there are lots and lots of studies that compare resurfacing to total hip replacement out there. You can find some of them on this website. If you use an experienced surgeon with a good resurfacing device, it clearly outperforms THR and you don't have any activity restriction for life either. Once you have a hip resurfacing, any discussion about THR means nothing anymore unless your other hip goes bad.

Chuckm

Comparing Resurfacing to natural hips makes sense because part of the recovery is psychological. We tend to assume that artificial hips are not as good as natural hips, which may be true to varying degrees, and to compare Resurfacing with the alternative, THR. But the differences are not always as they appear. The reality is that, at this point in history, we do have recourse to get Resurface devices, and perhaps there are ways in which they are superior to a natural hip. Worth considering the rebel line. Note the nuances.

I think if any artificial hip turned out to be better than the original, all those mega rich athletes woulld be booking in for new ones. Instead of all those plastic surgeons for the mega rich it would be Ortho surgeons. ::)

The discussions have always been about how "durable", not if they are better, which would include performance. But, you might be right if surgeons could figure a way to install these things without compromising so much soft tissue. According to Dr. Su, he doesn't see muscle strength return to more than 90% of pre op strength, and that would not be good for pro athletes.

Yes, Canadian-Ice, you are on to what I am getting at. I have a left BHR, but I still have my native right hip which is already showing moderate signs of OA - and I can feel it.

I don't worry any more about my BHR hip anymore, regardless if I go back to playing soccer (which I have by the way). It's my native hip that is the factor I need to consider when choosing my level of activity.

So I sit here with left hip BHR that is 98% sure to still be performing 15 years from now regardless of my activity (totally pain free too) and a native right hip that gets a little sore from activity and will get worse over time even if I choose to sit on the couch every day.

I'm definitely choosing to be active. And when it is time (according to a surgeon), I can resurface the right side too and make it more durable and pain free than it is right this moment.

Chuckm

Perfectly logical comparison.

I used to hope for cartilage repair to over take resurfacing as treatment of choice but gave up on the idea when I realized that being pain free and max functioning is more important than whether my hip is "native" or metal. If resurfacing continues to prove itself over time, it will remain a better option than cartilage repair for many since it will take a generation for any new techniques to prove themselves in the field even after they become widely available.