I consulted with a hip resurfacing specialist. He encouraged me to wait five years if possible because he felt that the technique would significantly improve over that time period. At present, my hip pain is manageable, but five years is a long time. I did not get clarification with respect to the types of improvements that he was expecting. What is going to happen over the next five years that could possibly warrant waiting that long? Thank you.
Hmm well your guess is as good as mine, but i think theres several things that could be.
Theres a big debate at the moment with reguard to cementless femoral components. I have seen several companys are producing laminated ceramic components. They could also be looking at new alloys etc,
Although the more data the surgeons and engineers have the better.
Danny
Within 5-10 years stem cell therapy will be here I bet, they already do it on dogs, a local vet has it pretty well perfected.
That's just my guess.
Of course with genetic defects and accidents etc hip resurfacing and total hips will still be needed.
Chuck
Quote from: sdcycling on April 16, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
I consulted with a hip resurfacing specialist. He encouraged me to wait five years if possible because he felt that the technique would significantly improve over that time period. At present, my hip pain is manageable, but five years is a long time. I did not get clarification with respect to the types of improvements that he was expecting. What is going to happen over the next five years that could possibly warrant waiting that long? Thank you.
I don't understand why he mentioned "improvements" without details. If you are having pain and ROM issues now I would get another opinion. Five years is a long time to wait when there are tested and proven products and techniques now. Anything that comes along in the next five years will have a very limited track record. The BHR has 13 years of data. Many people who get resurfacing say they wish they didn't wait so long.
Good luck, moe
Five years is just too specific. If your hip is degenerating, it is totally unknown how long until you are bone on bone. When my left hip started to go, I asked my local orthopaedist many times how long it would last and he told me there is no way to know, until one day I hobbled in and he said, "It is about time you got done." I have asked both him and Dr. De Smet how long till my right hip goes and they both say again there is no way of knowing.
So 'wait five years' sounds like 'find another surgeo'n.
I do not think stem cell cartilage growth will be an alternative to resurfacing for many people. It does not address the reason behind the initial degeneration of the cartilage, dysplasia or FAI, and would not help at all with bone spurs or cysts. I do not believe cartilage will be created with the same engineering standard as alloy. Stem cell technology in general seems a bit hit and miss. (Sorry Chuck)
I made the decision not to wait for a simple reason... I wanted to live my life!
Waiting placed too much on hold. As far as stem cells, it will be many years, the clinical trial necessary to prove efficacy and safety will be daunting. Not that the market would not be there should it show positive results but this is a major, multi-center undertaking IMHO.
sdcycling
What did the x-rays show? I went to my doctor my hip hurt and I had range of motion issues. We decided on a bunch of stretching exercises. After a year - my next regular physical - we talked again and I expressed the lack of progress. During this year I had done a number of 100K mountain bike races, cross country ski a bunch and a full cyclocross season - very active.
He took x-rays and found major bone on bone contact both sides - decided as I already had a flat spot on the right hip & that although I was not in much pain - the bone on bone wear is really bad - i should not wait. Now I could not imagine continuing with what I was doing and waiting another 5 years
I am now 4 weeks post op and will soon have the left hip done - I already see huge improvement
Cheers - Phill
Quote from: sdcycling on April 16, 2011, 03:06:56 PMHe encouraged me to wait five years if possible because he felt that the technique would significantly improve over that time period.
Was he talking about devices or surgery technique? I can't imagine that the surgery technique will get too much better than that demonstrated by top docs.
As for the devices... this stinker of that waiting game is that there may be new devices, but you'll be comparing them to devices with very long track records.
Waiting may work if your not too bad off and you can handle postponing surgery. Waiting is not an option for some.
Eventually, the pain gets to a point were it makes your life so limited that waiting is counterproductive.
I knew I had to have surgery eventually in 2007, but o decided to wait. I was in pain but not and enough that I felt I had to do it. Eventually, I didn't want to wait and wanted it fixed.
I am sure that as time goes by, the devices, tech Oakes, etc will always continue to improve....so you can always rationalize waiting by saying that if you wait, the devices will get better. But eventually you have to do it. It's the same with tvs and computers...whatever you buy will eventually ne outdated! But eventually your tv will break and you either have to buy what is available....or go without tv....
They may have a "better" hip in 10 years, or 5 years.... But I have on enow that works!
Hi Chuck,
Just some input on stem cell therapy for hips, based on my experience. Before I had my resurfacing, I ran across the same information that you mentioned on the stem cell work being done with dogs. I called and researched around the world, and found a Dr in Colorado that was doing basically the same thing with human knees, and claimed some success. He had not done a lot of hips, but had done a few, and felt that it might help in my case. For me the stem cell treatment was a disaster, and I went from skiing and walking with some pain, to instantly being unable to walk at all without crutches. It got progressively worse over the next two months, and lead to me getting the resurfacing. My understanding is that the process has since been regulated by the FDA, so that it is arguably less effective than it was when I had it done.
There were some reports of people having good success with this treatment in knees; but for me, the good news was that it forced me to stop procrastinating any longer to get my hip resurfaced since I could no longer walk, swim, or do anything else.
I, like you, continue to hold hope for this in the future, but my recent experience would indicate that it is a way.
John C
Great to hear from someone who has experience with the Stem Cell research, sorry it did not work out for you. From your photo it looks like you are back skiing.
Cheers - Phill
Unless ALiens are going to share some new technology, I'd say HR is going to be the standard for young active patients for the next 10-15 years. Every year in pain is a loss of a year without pain. I am looking forward to resuming 90% of my normal activities in the next five months. I couldn't wait 5 years.
I just got my right hip resurfaced , but could have put it off and endured longer. Taking pills and being a couch potato after work isn't something I want to keep doing. Also, health insurance these days isn't the most secure thing anymore.
The prosthesis that I have 'installed' the BMHR is the next step from resurfacing for patients where bone quality doesn't support a resurfacing. It pretty much looks the same with a thicker stem and there is more inside where the femoral head goes.
Now the reason that I bring this up is that the BMHR has been used in the UK since 2006 and since then approved for use in Australia and only some surgeons are using it. It is not yet FDA approved and thus is not being used in the US. In five years who knows whether it will be approved for use in the US. It will have an extra 5 years of data under it's belt relating to revisions etc (which currently look very similar to the BHR for Mr McMinn, so I'm hoping to see similar results to my surgeon's long term BHR's).
If I had of gone for surgery when it was first offered to me, I would have only had the option for total hip replacements. Now the benefits to me for the BMHR are similar to the BHR in that it is bone conserving and at 33 I will need a revision down the track that will be easier that a total hip revision.
Having said that, surgery was not the right option for me when it was previously offered and luckily, I ended up with a better option. It's the right time for me now, and I have the BMHR. Popular consensus between my rheumatologist and the surgeon was that I could probably stick it out for another two or three years before I was screaming for them to fix it and I had to make a choice in relation to my quality of life now. I decided that it was time and took the option available to me now. I don't know what will be available in 2 or 3 years but it will be 2 or 3 years that I will hopefully live without the old pain.
At the end of the day it comes down to what is right for your life now and don't be afraid to keep seeing surgeons until someone gives you a solution that works for YOU!
I'm a couple days late here, sorry, but I have to add something. The FDA, at least in the US, will drive how quickly new technology comes around. If the FDA won't approve it, your insurance won't either. Insurance is getting tighter and tighter every year. If stem cell or other technology comes out, it will be some time before it's approved by a government body and thus approved and paid for by insurance. My surgeon, whose been researching HR since the late 80s, told me rather frankly, that MOM HR will be surpassed by some other technology, but not in my lifetime. That's pretty sad since I'm only 41, but he was simply suggesting that FDA approvals take a long time (8 to 10 years or more) and he was being a little dramatic to make the point.
In short, I would have gotten a THR if HR was not available. I wouldn't wait 5 years hoping for something that may or may not be there.
Thanks for the heads up. Wise Guru is history. If a person is against resurfacing and wants to post - they need to identify themselves as a doctor, patient, reporter, medical writer, etc. Negative opinons from unknown posters will not be left on the discussion group.
I removed several other posts that had the original info quoted with the responses.
Pat
Pat, Confused why you would not let people post negative items about hip resurfacing on this talk group? This is your website, but as a follower, I am intrested in all angels of thought with hip resurfacing. Just my 2 cents.
Lori,
Constructive debate is a good thing. Anonymous trolling with BS info is not.
best,
spencer
I agree with Spencer, it was a bunch of bs that has no place here.
Lori,
You had to read the post. It was total B.S. from start to end. I too will listen to and consider anyone else' opinion and many times I have benefited from it. This wasn't just opinion or point of view, it was total misrepresentation of the latest facts on hip resurfacing.
Sorry, All, I didn't know that "Wise Guru" was trolling when I posted a reply yesterday.
Steve
I would like to read the various responses.
Darn! I was out of town the last couple of days and missed all the excitement.
Mac
The post by "Wise Guru" was pretty clearly from someone who has a bone to pick --- so to speak. It did intrigue me enough to do a little research on the 2010 Annual Report of the Australian Joint Replacement Registry. "Wise Guru" said that resurfacing is declining outside the US, and the 2010 did report a 17% decline between 2008 and 2009 and a 34% decline between 2005 and 2009. One explanation may be that inexperienced surgeons have realized that resurfacing has a substantial learning curve, and along the way some have stopped doing the procedure rather than continue along the curve. More than a year before I had my resurfacing I saw a surgeon who said that I would be a good candidate for resurfacing, but he had done only 7; when I checked back with him about a year later, he said that he no longer did resurfacings because some of his resurfacing patients weren't happy with the results. I ultimately went to a surgeon who had performed hundreds of resurfacings. Obviously, other potential resurfacing patients who saw the first surgeon I consulted would no longer be given the option of resurfacing.
Sorry, but I think the end user should be able to determine a b.s. Post. I really thought this site was for free thinking? I am not trying to upset anyone.
Like others I am sorry I missed a BS posting.
Pat - I think this is a great site, I do find enough new information to make me come back regular; it is a moderated site so somethings might be posted that should not be here - this way I know that there are wiser people than I making sure I do not totally misled. But if it was that "good" it would have been worth a read :o
Cheers - Phill
I did read the post and reply to it. It was waste of space, and if not mindless, designed to upset. The responses, however, could have remained and been of interest. And as such, I am going to quote my response to it:
QuoteDo what?
D.
I do allow people to post their revision stories and opinons against hip resurfacing. If they get to posting the negative information over and over and in many different places, I remove it. Everyone is entitled to an opnion if written in a courteous manner.
I knew from the Guru post that is was not from a patient. Since then, he has written me and is an orthopedic surgeon that does not believe in resurfacing except in a few cases. If he had identified himself properly, I might have allowed him to post information about why he does not like the procedure. This site is my personal website about hip resurfacing. I pay for the hosting and do the work - so I have control over the content if it is not based on medical fact. Too many surgeons are bad mouthing resurfacing based on the one study in the UK of the 30 assistants that had bad results or from the less expeirnced surgeons that placed components incorrectly. There is no secret hip resurfacing is a diffiuclt surgery and must be done by an expeirnced hip resurfacing surgeon for optimum outcomes.
I do have a website featuring total hip replacement at http://www.hipsforyou.com (http://www.hipsforyou.com) I developed that site for people that don't want hip resurfacing, don't believe in hip resurfacing or required a revision from a resurfacing to a THR. I have a place for people to post their opinons on that site too. I am not against THRs, I just prefer the bone sparing hip resurfacing procedure. I had my resurfacing in 2006 and am a true believer in the surgery. My hip resurfacing is fantastic and even if I every need a revision, I would still suggest the surgery for active people if they are candidates.
I prefer not to concentrate on the negatives of hip resurfacing. The bad outcomes are mostly from surgeon error in placing components poorly, bad patient selection and a few patients that are actually allergic to the metal components. All surgeries have a possibility of bad outcomes, but fortunately, most people have good results. If you want a 100% guarantee that any surgery will be perfect - you would not have surgery performed on your body. I had a 1-3% chance of dying with my aortic valve replacement last summer. I still choose to continue to live and had the surgery to do so. I went to one of the best heart surgeons in the country at the Cleveland Clinic. I choose carefully and had a good outcome. I did not want a surgeon just learning to do valve replacments to do my surgery! Cleveland Clinic itself has had 0 deaths from minimally invasive arotic valve replacement while other hospitals have a 1-3% chance of death with full chest cracking for open heart surgery.
So the lesson is to the learn what you want and how to choose a good surgeon. Not to read tons of negative information that is not based on medical fact. The meeting I am attending this Saturday in Phoenix is to learn more about the BHR surgeries and to answer the incorrect negative information that is being spread by the press and many surgeons not knowledgeable about hip resurfacing.
I do want both postive and negative, but it should be in proportion to the actual outcomes which currently is a 96% retention rate worldwide now. So only 4% of the information on the site should be negative while 96% should be positive. Many of the people with great outcomes are happy living their lives and don't post their stories at all. So I just try to keep a balance for all the new people doing research.
Pat
Quote from: Pat Walter on April 26, 2011, 10:25:40 AM
... currently is a 96% revision rate ...
Pat, 96% success rate.
Thanks lopsided! Yes - the overall RETENTION rate is 96% for BHR worldwide according according to the lastest statistics. http://www.surfacehippy.info/bhrhistory.php (http://www.surfacehippy.info/bhrhistory.php)
Please note again that I do allow people to post that don't think hip resurfacing is a good option, have had revisions and have had problems. There have been people saying they just don't like hip resurfacing and the reason. When a doctor makes posts and refuses to publically claim his profession and then bad mouths resurfacing, then I don't feel it is a fair post. This is not a site to convience people that hip resurfacing is a bad option. This is a website designed to help people learn about the positive outcomes of hip resurfacing. Again, there are problems and they are listed on this site along with revision stories. Other than that, this is a place for Surface Hippies to share their stories with others and give and receive support. I paid to develop and run the site for over 3 years without a penny of income. I gave 3 years of full time work out of my life to develop the site and I feel I have the control to determine the goal of the website.
The Goal is to inform people that hip resurfacing is a great option for a bad hip if they are a good candidate. If someone believes otherwise, then they should start a website to educate people about the problems of hip resurfacing. Those problems, however, are small compared to the positive outcomes around the world.
Pat
Quote from: lori.36 on April 25, 2011, 11:06:21 AM
Pat, Confused why you would not let people post negative items about hip resurfacing on this talk group? This is your website, but as a follower, I am intrested in all angels of thought with hip resurfacing. Just my 2 cents.
Lori, a friends co-worker had a THR 2 years ago at a very well respected hospital in Boston. I did some research on the surgeon, his website was loaded with negative info on resurfacing, was totally against it. Anyone going to him would never have a resurf, I can't remember his name but I wouldn't reveal it anyway. My point is, the negative info is out there, you just have to look for it.
moe
Hello All,
First of all, I wante to thank Pat for starting this site and bringing together all these people. What an incredable contribution. I believe it was this site and the MHR site which made me aware of the possibility of this optoin. Perhaps I could share a bit of my story and ask a couple questions? We are all so lucky to have this hip resurfacing option which can add decades to our sporting lives.
I was formally diagnosed with OA April 14th 2011 as X-Ray showed all but a couple of mm of my lower left hip joint space gone. I'm 36 years old and like many people on this site have been extremely active in sports all my life -- weightlifting in my teens; martial arts in my 20s; and running in my 30s. I was being trained by a world class Kenyan marathoner in 2007 when achiles strain put me out, followed by adductus magnus tear, then quad tear from a chiropractor treating the adductus with Graston. The OA seems to have been found indvertantly. Guess God had plans for me other than a running career.
Just in May and April, while being off even yoga and the exercise bike because of the quad tears, the OA symptoms have emerged. Mainly this Pain in the Butt all the time -- even when walking! Man, do I hope that rehabing the quad, physical therapy, and sports take away the pain. Not sure how that could be.
I suppose there is a small chance that the hip resurfacing will never be necessary. However, I have a few question I will have space for only on the next post.......
My questions are as follows,
1. What developments can be expected in HR devices over the next 5-10 years? Pat, with your contact with the doctors and the field, can you inform us of some of the key areas of research?
2. Does anyone have information about THR and what improvements are being made in those devices? One wounders if it will become possible to safely run with even THRs by the time folks with current HRs need a replacement?
By the way, I am later this week speaking to a scientist who is on the front lines of stem cell research for OA in Toronto. If anyone wants to know, I'll post what she tells me, saving her identity of course. Unfortunately, by e-mail thus far she said "there is still a long way to go before stem cells will be used clinically."
On the other hand, is it too optimistic to believe that even for those of you even with HRs and THRs regenerative therapies will have applications for you, too, within your lifetimes?
Jeremy, My surgeon is a big advocate for MOM THR. I've heard Pat say that their are a few runners who had MOM THR and continue in their sport. I had a HR because I know I will wear it out over the next ten years and I didn't want to risk a full THR revision in my 60s.
I dont know the data on each in terms of effectiveness. It would be great to see that data.
Jeremy
I always ask what is on the horizon for resurfacing, but new devices and changes move very slowly. I will ask this weekend when I get a chance.
I am always interested in new research. Would be happy to learn more about stem cell research.
Generally the companies are developing ceramic on ceramic resurfacing devices. Most THR devices are being developed with shorter stems. Since metal of metal is causing problems, the goal is to coat or change the material in the devices. Very general - but what is happening now.
Pat
Hipnhop, are you running with your HR? If so, what does it feel like? Are there any limitations?
I get that you have decided to continue with your sporting life despite that the HR will wear out sooner. These are years of your life that are very valuable. The only thing is, it seems to me, that given the THR last only 10-15 years, you will have to have revisions in your old age no matter what. . . but...based on the little I've read, that won't be such as bad thing...The procedures is becoming simplified, the recovery times shorter, and the devices better (at least slowly, as Pat said).
Pat, I didn't know there were issues with the MOM THR. But, I'm sure the data on longevity will be very clear in the years to come of the various newer devices. There are also these biological devices used for knees now, like at the Stone Clinic. Hips will be more complicated but eventually candidates as well.
i can see the benefit of ceramic if metal is causing problems.
it would really suck to know that my new hip was bad becasue it was made of metal instead of ceramic.
my local doctor told me he does mostly ceramic on ployetheline total hips... and avoids metal becasue of the potential for problems... but when i point blank asked him if i shoudl wait to see if HR gets ceramic or some other substance, he said no.. he said it is uncommon to have problems from metal... but the industry is moving away from it because of the potential for the problem.. while it's rare, why use metal if there is another substance tha thas zero problems.
lets all hope we don't have metal problems... and hope for the next generation of hip resurfacing patients that there is some other substance that is even better. i opted to fix my hip... waiting was no longer an option. I felt lucky that hte uncemented appproach was available for me... if i had done this 5 eyars ago I wouldn't have had that option.
if we had had this problem 30 years ago... we'd be getting our hips fused...and we wouldnt' have the HR or THR optiosn that are available today.
at least we have options. i hope there are even better options in the future....
Quote from: Jeremy76761 on April 27, 2011, 10:41:42 PM
... continue with your sporting life despite that the HR will wear out sooner ...
Why should the device wear out sooner? From what we gather, a good device implanted correctly could have the potential to last for life. With correct placement, the metal should never wear out in a lifetime. Doing moderate sport might improve bone density and so extend the functional life of a device.
Quote from: 23109VC on April 27, 2011, 10:41:50 PM
i can see the benefit of ceramic if metal is causing problems ... my local doctor told me he does mostly ceramic on ployetheline total hips... and avoids metal because of the potential for problems ... why use metal if there is another substance that has zero problems ...
Metal is not causing problems. It is only a small minority that have problems because of allergy or bad placement. Small ball hips do not avoid problems of metal, they have their own problems. No substance has zero problems.
There are no guarantees. I hope my resurfacing lasts me for life, and am so happy with it, I would like to get the other hip done, even though it does not need it yet.
lopsided,
You would know more about longevity of the devices than me...but hipnhop seems to expect ten years with his lifestyle...surgeon I talked to was non-commital...the BMHP website indicates that 5 years at least is virtually certain . . . .how do we know they're intended to last for life? Would be great....I'm just not sure we're there yet...Maybe up to 30 years?
One other question: does anyone know if it is possible to actually sprint 100% with the HR? If so, what are the limitations imposed by the device?
No limitations on sprinting, running very fast 200 repeats, 400's, 800's or miles. Or for that matter, heavy squats, heavy deadlifts , box jumps, box jumps with a weighted vest, walking lunges with a 45lb bar overhead....you name it, it can be done all you need is a skilled surgeon.
best,
spencer
AWSOME!!!!!!!
Spencer, you know how to talk my language!
Yeah that gets me stokes, I want to sprint again, in time I think I will.
Hey I'm missed the dust up, it looks like wise guy came in right after my post, darn. I need to stick around more often. However, as Pat pointed out long ago, folks who get through a good part iof their recovery go aff and have fun and aren't spending as much time here. I'm doing that, because my left hip feels awesome.
With regards to wise guys and orthopedic surgeons that don't believe in HR, it simply shows that there are people that don't understand it. It also suggests to me why a large insurance company would make comments like "hip arthroplasty is of questionable medical value". Them's fightin' words. So understandbly, wise guy (guru) and other "wise" guys are not helping the HR movement, but an orthopedic surgeon who doesn't believe in it, they are REALLY not helping the HR movement. It's that sort of talk that gives insurance companies ammo to start chiselling away at benefits for HR or THR for that matter. They need to see the numbers, like 96% success. Hello?
Spencer
thanks for the note on your running schedule, good encouragement - maybe I will start running :o probably stick with crazy mountain biking ;D
Cheers - Phill
Hey Phill,
We do lots of biking here in AZ...mostly road for me but lots of both. Drop me a line if you're ever in Tucson---I'll take you on a ride up Mt Lemmon. (That's also an open invite
for anyone on this board). We also have two or three cycling/triathlon camps in March.
best,
spencer
Hi Sean,
A few months ago, I did some search about material used on HR devices, trying understand the "why".
In a few words, most of the devices are using Metal-on-Metal design. One Dutch manufacturer is using a ceramic coating on both components. They are however differences on the manufacturing process of the 2 components (cast-cast, cast-wrought or wrought-wrought). They are also differences on the geometry, clearance between components and surface finish.
I have understood that the key issue is to keep wear as low as possible, because concentration of Cr-Co ions in blood is a function of the wear rate of the device. So, even if we have only 2 components, there is a huge set of parameters to optimize for future product research.
Spencer - thanks I will keep a note as I do travel around plenty but AZ is not an area I currently have responsibility for. I looked the ride up and a good 6000 feet of climbing classed as an "epic ride"
This week I travel St Louis, Milwaukke, Madison and Minneapolis - great biking places but I will be in the pool at the hotel doing some "wet running" My boss does not give me much time off during travel but I am planning on more time between visits as I start to get back on the road.
Mt Lemmon is on the list and I will let you know
Cheers - Phill
Forward to my earlier note. As promised, here is what I found in my discussion with a research head leading a large team involved with regenerative medicine for a major Canadian hospital. This person is very prominent in the field of joint replacement. I'll pass on a few highlights from this source for those interested. I asked them at the end of the conversation whether I could do this, and it was fine.
1. Within 5-10 years the first biological joint replacement treatments will likely become available on a mass scale for humans. This might start in the United States.
2. Treatments will progress from smaller to larger joints. They are currently being done successfully in the lab with small joints in animals.
3. Eventually it is hoped there will be a toolbox of treatments for various clinical situations. Cartilage replacement will be one option. Another goal is to replace the entire top portion of the femur head.
4. Procedures involve growing the needed graphs from the patient's own stem cells to avoid rejection.
5. In time, people with hip resurfacing may have the option of a new biological joint instead of a "revision" to THR. People with THRs today may benefit from a new joint instead of a revision THR. The whole point is to have new biological joints as good as new.
6. This lead researcher certainly thinks that complete biological joint replacement will be widely available long before 20 years.
So there you have it. Feel free to ask other sources or do your own research if you want. Hope this is helpful to someone.
Quote from: Jeremy76761 on May 25, 2011, 07:50:09 PM
1. Within 5-10 years the first biological joint replacement treatments will likely become available on a mass scale for humans. This might start in the United States.
2. Treatments will progress from smaller to larger joints. They are currently being done successfully in the lab with small joints in animals.
3. Eventually it is hoped there will be a toolbox of treatments for various clinical situations. Cartilage replacement will be one option. Another goal is to replace the entire top portion of the femur head.
4. Procedures involve growing the needed graphs from the patient's own stem cells to avoid rejection.
5. In time, people with hip resurfacing may have the option of a new biological joint instead of a "revision" to THR. People with THRs today may benefit from a new joint instead of a revision THR. The whole point is to have new biological joints as good as new.
6. This lead researcher certainly thinks that complete biological joint replacement will be widely available long before 20 years.
Amazing. Each point is more incredulous than the last.
In no time they will just clone your body, and then download your consciousness into the new perfect younger body...new hip, new body! I guess those of us who got our hips resurfaced got screwed!
Hahahahaha ::)
Hey, all that stuff sounds great, but I wouldn't hold my breath fr any of it, especially if you are suffering now. If you are thinking of stuff that might ne available to the next generation...great. If you are limping all over in pain TODAY and need your hip fixd NOW.... Go get it resurfaced. I had mine done three months ago and I feel like a million bucks!