- The overall survival was 95.1% at 13 years
- Survivorship in men was 98.6% at 13 years
- Survivorship in women was 87.9% at 13 years
Smith & Nephew
Review by Patricia Walter
May 6, 2010
Introduction: Joseph M. DeVivo, President of Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics
Joseph M. DeVivo, President of Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics
- Voluntary actions initiated to remove smaller size components and change Instructions for Use (IFU) following analysis of recent performance data
- No action required from patients; no change to current practice for patient follow-up care
- BHR continues to perform amongst the best hip replacements for the right patients
New Data Reinforces the Proven Safety and Effectiveness of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System80-percent of US surgeons choose the BHR hip as it outperforms all other metal-on-metal resurfacing devices
MEMPHIS, Tenn., May 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Recent new data(1) presented at this year’s American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting reinforces the BIRMINGHAM HIP™ Resurfacing (BHR) System as a safe and effective hip resurfacing device. The multi-site study, performed by orthopedic surgeons practicing at nine Canadian academic centers, showed that three years after surgery, 99.91% of their 3,400 hip resurfacing patients experienced no implant failure due to metal wear debris. The BHR Hip was the most used resurfacing device in this study.This week, the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City
|*Gathered by Vicky Marlow Freelance Patient Advocate Volunteer Miami Orthopedic Conference 10/2007|
BHR 10 years of Data
The first BHR was implantedin July 1997 and it is unchanged until present day.
Six-year results of a prospective study of metal ion levels in young patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings 2009 Read Original Article by Clicking Here
J. Daniel, FRCS, MS(Orth), Director of Research1; H. Ziaee, BSc(Hons), Biomedical Scientist1; C. Pradhan, FRCS, MCh(Orth), Staff Orthopaedic Surgeon1; and D. J. W. McMinn, FRCS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1 1 The McMinn Centre, 25 Highfield Road, Birmingham B15 3DP, UK.We describe the findings at six years in an ongoing prospective clinicoradiological and metal ion study in a cohort of 26 consecutive male patients with unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties with one of two femoral head sizes (50 mm and 54 mm). Their mean age was 52.9 years (29 to 67). We have previously shown an early increase in the 24-hour urinary… Read the rest
X-ray showing a 26 year old man with a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis and secondary degeneration of the hips. Due to loss of bone stock while waiting for surgery, the right side required a total hip replacement. On the left, the patient underwent a hip resurfacing.
Thank You to whoever took this x-ray. There was no author indicated.
BHR vs THR X-ray from Mr. Mark Bloomfield’s Website
Posted April 26, 2012 http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/94-B/9/1180.abstract
An independent seriesD. W. Murray, FRCS, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Professor1 ; G. Grammatopoulos, MRCS, Orthopaedic Registrar1 ; H. Pandit, DPhil, FRCS, Orthopaedic Surgeon1 ; R. Gundle, DPhil, FRCS, Orthopaedic Surgeon2 ; H. S. Gill, DPhil, Lecturer in Orthopaedic Engineering1 ; and P. McLardy-Smith, FRCS, Orthopaedic Surgeon2
Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre.
In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age
Results of Hip Resurfacing at the Cleveland Clinic by Dr. Brooks December 2012Peter Brooks MD, FRCS(C) www.clevelandclinic.org 216-444-4284 email@example.com I have been performing hip resurfacing at Cleveland Clinic using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) since 2006, shortly after it became the first resurfacing device to be approved by the FDA. Two of my partners perform BHR as well. We also perform total hip replacement (THR). I would agree with Dr Gross, “The Durability of Hip Resurfacing” on this site in his excellent rebuttal to an ongoing series of dubious studies and apples-to-oranges comparisons in the orthopedic literature, mass media, national registries, and personal series. I have been very pleased with the outstanding results of hip resurfacing when done in the right patient, using
A picture is worth a thousand words! A sketch by Patricia Walter illustrates a hip resurfacing device on the left compared to a total hip replacement device on the right. Which bone sparing device looks more natural and bone conserving to you? According to medical studies, a hip resurfacing provides a more natural gait and loads the hip more naturally than a total hip replacement.Gait Medical Study for Hip Resurfacing.
Published Thursday, Feb. 09, 2012LONDON, February 9, 2012 -PRNewswire/ – Smith & Nephew (NYSE:SNN; LSE:SN), the global medical technology business, today announced the results of a new study for its BIRMINGHAM HIP™ Resurfacing (BHR) System. The study, carried out at the request of the FDA, followed the progress of the first 400 BHR patients in the United Kingdom and found that after 10 years, 99% were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with their BHR procedure.
“These results further exemplify why the BHR Hip is unlike any other metal-on-metal implant,” says John Soto, Senior Vice President for Smith & Nephew’s Global Hip Franchise. “Not only does the BHR Hip offer all the advantages of hip resurfacing, including bone-conservation, greater range of motion and … Read the rest