Hi...I'm new to this posting site and scheduled to have BHR March 7th at The Cleveland Clinic w/Dr. Brooks
Looking at The Australian Registry for 2011 concerned me in that the Australians continue to opt away from Hip Resurfacing since a peak in absolute numbers in 2005, per the excerpt below and if you have insight or comments please advise me, Tim Cunningham 321 757-3733.
Primary Total Resurfacing Hip Replacement
Demographics
There have been 14,298 total resurfacing procedures
reported to the Registry, an additional 991 procedures
compared to the last report.
The use of resurfacing hip replacement in Australia
continues to decline. The number of procedures
reported in 2010 was 22.1% less than in 2009 and
48.6% less compared to the peak in 2005.
Osteoarthritis is the principal diagnosis for total
resurfacing hip replacement (94.8%), followed by
developmental dysplasia (2.6%) and osteonecrosis
(1.8%).
Most patients are male and the proportion of males
has increased from 71.2% in 2003 to 91.0% in 2010
(Figure HT33).
I think that a lot of people have been put off by the one sided negative media. Until smith and nephew come out and silence the negativity with the real truth I think people will continue to be put off by this negative press. Very sad.
What strikes me as significant is the decline of women receiving hip resurfacing. This procedure says that in Australia in 2010 - 91% of people having HR are males. I'd be curious as to know how that compares to European registries. Since we don't have registries in the US it makes it hard to see trends here.
This report is disturbing...
Luanna
I think Danny has hit it on the head. The unwarranted bad press of good HR outcomes (as supported by the Australian registry) is having its effect, herding people from HR to THRs or (tragically to me) they may be putting off surgery altogether, putting up with that pain.
One of the things that the press emphasized was that HR was much worse for women; this seems to have affected the number of women electing HR, as seen by the increase in percentage of men vs. women having it.
Very sad to me, as this is surgery that has been a lifesaver.
And/or is it impacting the number of physcians who are willing to do the procedure on women? and not just that the women are not opting for the procedure?
Yup, you are right, Luanna.
Although there are fewer hip resurfacings in Australia and in some other countries, it is still an excellent solution for hip problems. The overall retention rate of the BHR world wide is 96% That is an excellent record. There has been a lot of negative info recently based on half truths. Many surgeons had problems with their resurfacings since it is a difficult surgery and those problems make resurfacing look bad. Many have stopped doing resurfacing and now there are fewer hip resurfacing surgeons, but they are becoming highly skilled. Surgeons like Dr. Brooks have excellent records and I would not hesitate to use him myself. Since 2005, when I started this website, I have always suggested only using the top experienced resurfacing surgeons. They have excellent retention rates. I went to Belgium in 2006 because I wanted a really experienced surgeon to do my resurfacing.
The lessons I have learned since 2005 is that the top experienced resurfacing surgeons have excellent outcomes while the less experienced have more problems and revisions. Many of the top surgeons think hip resurfacing will continue to be an excellent option. Most of the current video interviews I have done with the top surgeons explain their opinions about resurfacing and all the negative media info. http://www.surfacehippy.info/shvideos/videosdoctor.php (http://www.surfacehippy.info/shvideos/videosdoctor.php)
I know people keep asking how long their hip resurfacings will last and what is the revision rate, but they seldom take time to ask the same questions about THRs. THRs are not perfect and have many problems also. Those show up in the National Registries, too. There is no 100% perfect solution for a hip replacement. It is difficult for man to design a device that will ever be as good as the original equipment. Meanwhile, we accept the devices that seem to have excellent outcomes and that includes the BHR.
Pat
PAt what do you mean by "a retention rate of 9.6"?
I believe that will be a misplaced decimal and the rate is 96% for all THR's.
Quote from: dwbitt on January 10, 2012, 07:27:16 AM
I believe that will be a misplaced decimal and the rate is 96% for all THR's.
It's 96% retention for the BHR
What I fail to understand most is the whole idea that the chance of a failed HR makes it an unacceptable option. If you needed a new liver, would you decline because it isn't 100 percent guaranteed? The fact is that the requirement for a revision is a distinct possibility when one gets a Hip Resurfaced, a small one, but a possibility nonetheless. If that happens, you get the THR anyway.
There are rotten and unlucky outcomes with almost any surgery, which is why you can't treat it like a visit to the botox man. We better our chances by picking the best surgeons we can find or afford and then hope for the very best outcomes. If all the stars align against me and I need a THR revision, I will have counted the risks versus the reward as having been worth it and I will still be better off than the condition I was in pre-op. The obvious advantage is that if it does hold I can be more active and it might last significantly longer than a THR...we'll see.
The negative press, and worries about metal on metal, and the frightening possibility of needing a revision shouldn't dissuade people from an HR...I mean what are the options? Simply opting for a THR is in fact, what the revision would have resulted in, and while saving one from a major surgery, dismisses any chance for the increase in longevity and activity that the HR might have. The other option seems to be to do nothing at all and simply bear it.
I would be very interested to have Pat ask the question about how long HR patients would have been willing to "do nothing", vice going with a THR. As an example, I would not have made it another 6-12 months before I was on full disability and sitting in a chair on drugs. For me the surgery was a God-send, even if it doesn't hold up.
As always, this is just IMHO,
Curt
There is considerable debate going on around the world regarding hip resurfacing. The agenda for the upcoming Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Is filled with topics related specifically to hip resurfacing. I don't look at this as totally negative. The results for resurfacing have not been as good for small boned women. What's wrong with sharing that data and having a discussion about why the outcomes have not been as good? What's wrong with publishing the data on metal on metal issues and having a debate about that? Also, I think it's wonderful that inexperienced surgeons, and surgeons who lack confidence in resurfacing are abandoning the procedure. Perhaps it should be left to specialists.
Hip resurfacing has been a Godsend for many people posting on this website. The prostheses and the procedures will get even better in the future as a result of study and debate about the past successes and failures. We should look forward to hearing about the results of the upcoming AAOS. I think a lot of the misinformation being published will be replaced by real data and hopefully some consensus from the Orthopedic Surgery community on candidates, procedure, pain management and recovery.
Those who are interested can access the meeting agenda on the AAOS website. The agenda also indicates which Orthopedic Surgeons are participating in the panels and debates. There are some very good resurfacing surgeons leading the way.
Some countries like Sweden and Australia are moving away from resurfacing, which frightens many on this site. Consider that the successes being had by the resurfacing surgeons in the US may turn the tide internationally back toward resurfacing once some of the issues like perceived problems with small bones women and metal on metal issues are opening discussed and resolved. Don't lose hope. Medical procedures are driven by demographics and patient demand. There is a huge wave of baby boomers asking for innovative treatments to enable them to continue to lead active lives.
Boomer
I am sorry about the typo. I meant the BHR has a retention rate of 96% That means 96 people out of 100 will have no problems and hopefully will keep their BHRs a very long time. Right now the registries don't go back to 1997 when the first BHRs were placed. That statistic also means 4 out of 100 people will have revisions or problems. The way to make sure you are not a statics and one of those 4 people is to use the very experienced hip resurfacing surgeons. They have very few problems.
I think we should all be interested in real medical studies, surgeons' series of resurfacings and national registries. That is where we get our legitimate statistics.
I attend hip resurfacing courses and the one thing that is discussed over and over is that patients should use the really experienced surgeons. The teaching surgeons suggest that if there is a group of orthopedics in one office, that only one does resurfacing so he does them often and gets experienced. That is better than each doing a few now and then. So experience is still the most important factor in choosing a surgeon according to the surgeons teaching and the statistics.
We also have to understand that any major surgery can have problems. Surgeons are cutting our bodies open and fixing or replacing parts. We are all designed a bit differently as humans and the surgeons have to adjust for this. I am actually in awe that they can even do what they do! You can't get a 100% outcome warranty with any surgery - it is not possible. So you do your homework and choose the surgeons that have the least problems. You also can't stay in pain because you might have a small chance of having problems. I had to have an aortic valve replacement by open heart surgery or I would die within a year or two. The statistics are that 1% have problems or die during surgery at some facilities. So I chose Cleveland Clinic which is number 1 in the country and chose a surgeon that had placed 3000 valves. He does them all the time. I knew I could die, but the chance was very slim. Actually at the Cleveland Clinic, their outcomes with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has not had any deaths. Minimally invasive still means they cut your chest open, but don't crack the whole chest and it still means you lay there for 6 hours on a heart and lung machine. So it is very major surgery, but just a bit of a different technique. The moral of my story is - do your homework and keep your odds of having problems to a minimum.
The top surgeons think hip resurfacing will always be a solution for the proper, active candidates, but there seems to be fewer done now. I have heard them say that they think it will come back - but who knows. All of the negative media is not helping. The ASR did not help. It is a shame to have so much bad press about a surgery that can be very successful.
Pat
Boomer, I agree that we need real hard data, but that is in fact what Pat has provided here. If you look at the Australian national registry, you see both the retention rate and revision rates for both HR and THR in Australia.
I've read the thing front to back and it supports my belief in HR. The data is there, for anyone (NY TIMES?) who wants to read it. It makes the decision by some to move from HR even more poignant, since to me the risk is worth it.
We've talked a lot about metal ion issues, but if you look at the data, you'll find that in Australia, the metal ion revisions are much lower than those from other reasons:
(Quoting from the Australian report)
"The main reasons for revision of primary resurfacing hip replacements are loosening/lysis (34.8%), fracture (32.3%), infection (8.0%), metal sensitivity (8.0%) and pain (5.6%) (Table HT63)."
and about the overall revision rate in Australia over the course of ten years:
"The cumulative percent revision at ten years for primary total resurfacing hip replacement undertaken for osteoarthritis is 7.5% (Table HT62 and Figure HT35"
(Both from page 105 of the 2011 report). What this says is that over the course of ten years, whether from improper placement of the devices, infection, fracture, all possible sort of medical reasons, 92.5% of the devices were still in place and functioning well. The revision rate over each year was about 1.2-1.5% per year.
Of the remaining 7.5%, the types of revisions were (again, quoting):
"The main types of revision of resurfacing hip replacement are isolated femoral (48.2%), total hip replacement (41.7%) and acetabular only (6.8%) (Table HT64).".
Which means that of all revisions, (48.6 + 6.8 %) 55.4% were revised so that the HR still was in place. This means that even when there was an issue serious enough to require a revision, the revision was to allow the patient to keep the HR. Doing some math, that increases the viable HR population in Australia to 92.5% (population without a problem) + (.554 * 7.5) 4.155% (revised to HR) = 96.66% people in Australia who were healthy and functional with an HR. The remainder, I assume were healthy and functional with a THR.
I don't see the need for a panic if you follow logic. The data is there, the country is large enough and the statistical data gathering is responsible enough to be credible. I still see a surgical procedure with a very high success rate, with a positive alternative (THR).
BTW Curt - the mortality rate for botox is 3% ... for procedures done by qualified people.
http://www.surgery.com/procedure/botox/morbidity-mortality (http://www.surgery.com/procedure/botox/morbidity-mortality)
Apparently that is acceptable for the people having that done. ::)
Hern,
Thanks for the analysis. Well done. But...don't try to take my botox away!!! :)
Luanna
Thanks Luanna, but I think you're beautiful just the way you are :-[
QuoteAlso, I think it's wonderful that inexperienced surgeons, and surgeons who lack confidence in resurfacing are abandoning the procedure. Perhaps it should be left to specialists. - Boomer
Quite right, Boomer. The way it stands in the U.S now is that
ANY Orthopedic Surgeon who feels like "getting into the the business" of doing arthroscopic surgery or hip resurfacing CAN - without in depth training, without practicing on cadavers, and without any negative financial repercussions. Thus, inexperienced surgeons
'practice on them' -
the patients unknowingly getting substandard medical care, the patients unwittingly being nothing more than human guinea pigs, and the patients desperately having faith 'their' surgeon knows what they are doing and will do them no harm. These inexperienced surgeons are not only unconscionable in their practice of medicine, but in my opinion criminally and morally bankrupt.
It's really no surprise our laws allow surgeons to be gods, doing as they wish without oversight or requirements for special training to do highly specialized, cutting edge procedures. We are, after all, one of the countries who think it's citizens should basically die if you can't afford the spiraling cost of health insurance or life preserving surgery. Our health care, and especially our allowing surgeons to 'practice' any way they wish with out adequate protections in place for unsuspecting patients, is a crying shame.
One of the data points involving revisions, which may be important to keep in mind, is the human element and behavioral differences in the management of the implant by those who recieve it, particularly in light of the different protocols every surgeon seems to use to restrict activity following the surgery.
Along with poor placement, surgeons who are inexperienced, and failures of certain devices (for any number of reasons) some unknown (and potentially unknowable) percentage of failures are certainly attributable to the actions of the persons who get the implant, via not following restrictions, their surgeon providing different restrictions that may increase the risks, weight gains, unforseeable accidents, high impact sports, etc, etc. The very active population who get this done, are, well, very active and will remain that way when/if they can, which is completely understandable and expected, but that personality type does raise the risk of failure, just by virtue of who they are, and how they choose to live their lives, and doing what is very important to them. Very active persuits like many here undertake, love and live for are going to cause failures for some people, at some point.
Conversely those who are much less active are not really condidates for this procedure, therefore impacting the statistics in the other direction for retention by individuals who do not put the implant to the test in very active persuits, and therefore would seemingly have a lower risk of activity-induced failures. Many who get THR are in that population group, it would seem.
That is not a statement "blaming the victim" on any level, just an acknowledgement of the high level drive to be incredibly active many who get this done have, that adds to the overall stats on performance and revisions, based simply on the target population characteristics.
Cheers Tim,
This is a very interesting conversation about the Australian registry. It's sort of a Rorschach in the way you view the article through your own lens and experiences.
QuoteThe very active population who get this done, are, well, very active and will remain that way when/if they can, which is completely understandable and expected, but that personality type does raise the risk of failure, just by virtue of who they are, and how they choose to live their lives, and doing what is very important to them. Very active persuits like many here undertake, love and live for are going to cause failures for some people, at some point......
....not a statement "blaming the victim" on any level, just an acknowledgement of the high level drive to be incredibly active many who get this done have, that adds to the overall stats on performance and revisions, based simply on the target population characteristics.- Dan L
You're preaching to the choir, Dan L, IMHO. I am afraid for all the gifted athletes who run on 'heavy, heavy fuel' pushing past what our bionics and bodies are ready for - protocol be damned. They seem to be busting out of their fitness timelines way before the One Year Mark; I'm guessing because they are giddy with the freedom from their miserable, debilitating pain bondage. As a newbie, it looks to me that the 'highly driven types' have a 'It doesn't hurt, so surely this can't hurt to do X!' mentality that goes hand in glove with breaking protocol, magically thinking they are the exception to the absolute healing time periods, and run a real risk of dislocating their hardware or, God Forbid, breaking a femur.
So yeah, Dan L, if you're sedentary type person with end stage OA, you're probably not even thinking about, let alone doing, sports or working out your body for fun, and so a THR is just fine in your book.
Different strokes and all that.
'One
I used to post on here often but stopped because of things like this. I love this site but find it site is very one sided and people only wants to discuss positive outcomes. I understand the rationale for keeping things positive and extolling the virtues of hip resurfacing as opposed to Total hip replacement, however please don't dismiss the fact that there are a growing number of failures out there.
This is not one sided negative media and Smith and Nephew will never come out and silence people for speaking out. There are a lot of failures out there. Thank god that some countries are keeping registrys, it's time the US were too. I know of quite a few S&N failures, we are growing in number.
I am now recovering after my 5th surgery in 3 years. I had a very experienced surgeon and perfectly placed/angled cups. Dr Pritchett is now concerned over the failures in women and is advising them of the risks of metal on metal in women.
Hi Barbara,
So good to see you posting! I've been thinking about you and hoping that your revisions have gone/are going well. I recall the struggles you've experienced and know that you are in the process of finding solutions. I'd love to hear from you - PM or email and/or to get together for coffee and a conversation.
Yes, it's true. Dr. Pritchett has opinions that he is willing to voice that are not popular. But several of his colleagues are also showing interest in pursuing alternative options for small boned women. He will do BHR MoM for women with femoral implant size 46mm and above. There was one in the room next door to me in the hospital. I was a bit envious of her actually.
I'm only a few miles away. I'd love to visit if you have the time and inclination.
Luanna
Barbara,
The orthopedic surgery community is keenly aware of the problems, and revisions occurring with hip resurfacing. That's why it's such an important topic at the upcoming meeting. I believe surgeons are doing a better job these days of discussing the risks involved. My surgeon, Dr. Rector, spent considerable time with me twice outlining the risks associated with hip resurfacing, and gave me the opportunity to choose more traditional hip replacement. He was very willing to discuss the metal on metal issues. A number of women posting on this site have been told by Dr. Rector that he advised against resurfacing because he believed they were too small to be an ideal candidate. In most cases, each of these women has found another surgeon to do their resurfacing. Only time will tell who was correct is their assessment.
There is health debate going on about resurfacing. Your input is surely welcome.
My first hip was resurfaced only five weeks ago. I am a long way from being able to claim that surgery to be a success. I'll keep posting regardles of the outcome.
Boomer
I will flog the dead horse some more. First, I agree with Boomer about outcomes now,versus outcomes in the future. I was not in a position to wait, but almost suredly profitted from the mistakes and ignorance of past HRs. Mine may or may not last, but if it fails, maybe the next patient will be better off. A decade ago, cup angles were less understood, now 50 degrees is talked about as a goal maximum. My doctors had performed over a thousand HRs by the time I got there. The device is hopefully improved and certainly, his skills and experience have improved.
The science of HRs is young and as it matures, with and without failures, it can only get better or it will go a different path. We on this site, just by being patients are probably furthering the field with our successes and sadly, also with our failures. Future hippies will be the beneficiaries.
Curt
Hi Barbara,
Thank you for posting. I am very sorry that your resurfacing failed. I've had two failed arthroscopies circa 2009, and I think what you are going through stinks. That crappy surgeon didn't catch on that I had undiagnosed bone on bone end stage bilateral OA, and "repaired" my torn labrums.
My OA's location was the deepest center middle of the hip sockets and the top center of my femurs, almost a protrusio acetabuli because I was born with my femurs too deep back in the socket. Every film and every scan showed normal healthy cartilage and perfect joints, right up until I was on the table for bilateral resurfacing where Dr. Schmitt said he saw the femor tops were sheared off flat like a mesa or an upside down "L".
You are absolutely correct that the data is not exactly super promising for small boned women, especially the ion situation. I knew about the resurfacing risks for women, but I sought and found a reputable experienced resurfacing surgeon who would give it to me straight. I had and have no illusions.
I asked my surgeon, Dr. Schmitt, about the size of my bones and components, and he said my implant size was "man sized". M Left Hip's angle is 32 degrees, and my Right Hip is 30 degrees. My ball diameter in both hips is 44mm and my acetabular cups are 50mm. What does everyone think of my stats? Are they promising? Or am I considered to be at risk because my hardware is too small and I'm a woman?
My resurfacing may not go on successfully for a decade, it could fail sooner than that, or it could last for years and years, but I knew for certain I would burn through a bilateral THR quickly because of being active on a daily basis. From what I understand, revising a THR is a tough gig. With my eyes wide open and offered THR or BHR by my surgeon, I made the best informed choice for me. My hipster friend on the coast is choosing bilateral THR, one hip now and one hip later; she feels a conservative procedure with a longer track record is best for her.
I truly hope you find an end to your multiple surgeries and find a solution to your pain. Please keep posting and tell us your journey. Thank you again for posting.
'One
Hi Barbara, I am sorry for what you've gone through, and I know we don't minimize the issues with HRs. The problems are there and they are not small issues. I do contemplate that I may also run into problems, I may become one of the people who run into issues with the HR. I expect that if I do, the people here will back me up and I will go to a THR.
There are no guarantees here, and if there is a larger underlying issue, then let's tackle it here. In reading the Australian registry, I see that there is a better outcome than is being touted in the press. I have full respect for you and your struggles, knowing also that it is a possibility for me. In the end, though, I have to say that I would still make the choice for an HR for myself, knowing the odds and being cognizant of future problems. Please keep in touch, we are not just looking for positive outcomes, but are just reporting on our own experiences.
@Barbara - I am definitely sorry for what you have had to go through. It is easy to cite statistics and lose the real stories behind the failures.
What I react to is inflammatory wording and broad terms. For example you used "a lot of failures." What that represents to someone is generally more than single digit percentages. Even the usage of "growing number" can indicate a worsening problem when it may be in the same or lower proportion to all procedures. These are the kinds of terms that the NY Times reporter uses to create sensational stories to sell papers.
I support the honest look at the numbers and outcomes, even procedures that did not have favorable outcomes. I researched this thoroughly before my procedure and appreciated all the stories. In fact, once I decided that HR was a likely procedure I sought negative stories to ferret out any hidden issues. In the end, I decided that the risks were worth it.
The bottomline is that this community seems to support everyone looking for support or information. And we certainly are here to support you as well.
Best wishes.
Dan
Barbara;
Also very sorry to hear of your issues with the surgeries, I sincerely hope you get some resolution soon. It has to be very, very difficult to go through that many surgeries.
My impression is that people here are positive because most (96%) people who have had this surgery have reported as positive outcomes. That is a very high number relative to other surgeries, for example if you compare it to back surgery (something I've also been through many years ago) where various figures suggest the success rate is something between 80% and 40% (depending on where you look for information), where the prevalence of poor outcomes is much, much higher. My take is the upbeat mood here reflects the outcomes most have had.
Sadly, this does not help folks including you who have had a bad outcomes, and I can empathize with your feelings reading about others who have not had those kind of incredible diffculties seeming overly positive, but I do think it is because most have had the tremendous weight of debilitating, chronic pain lifted from their shoulders, and are understandably happy about that. I'm one of those.
This site also contains more than a few horror stories, each with a learning opportunity for anyone considering this surgery, and many of which I read before accepting the risks of going forward.
I do truly hope you get better,
Dan
Barb,
im really really sorry to hear of your problems with your hip resurfacing. However i know that you must feel agreeved that your HR had to be revised but still in the vast majority of cases certainly the BHR has the best record of and replacement hip device be it THR or HR.
I know that female patients outcomes with HR are not as good as they are in young males such as my self but i have a suspission that the main reason for this is dysplasia. From watching interviews with Derrick Mcminn and talking to my surgeon Mr Treacy its only in the last few years that the technique is being perfected for ladies with dysplasia (which is far more co,mmon in women than men) as they now understand that the comopnents have to be placed at different angles not the standard 40 degrees inclination 15 degrees aneversion as is normal in most other cases. So its perfectly consevable that a lady with dysplasia could recieve a BHR with perfect positioning in a normal sense and it still not work properly and need revision due the the morphology of the femur and acetabulem in people with dysplasia.
I have read in several places that surgeons mainly in the USA have only realised the importance of the inclination angles and anteversion in the last few years. Now to me thats a cop out as the BHR was designed from the start to be placed with 40 degrees inclination and 15-20 degrees anteversion. Having spoken to Mr Treacy about the placement of the cup he proudly informed me that in his total series of around 7000+ he has never had a revision due to a mis positioned acetabular cup. I belive that this is not just due to his skill as a surgeon but because he was involved in the design of the BHR and understands the importance of placement. Now when smith and nephew bought mid med tec and rolled the bhr on to the market they made all surgeons who wanted to use the BHR train with one of 3 surgeons Mr Mcminn and Mr Treacy were 2 of them, i cannot belive that they would leave out the fact that the device was designed to be implanted in a certain orriantation!
From speaking to several surgeons on the subject i belive that 90+% of the outcome is down to the surgeons skill after all there are a good number of ASR implants out there performing well even though its a poorly designed device.
Sorry for the rant
Danny
Quote from: Dan L on January 10, 2012, 12:13:08 PM
One of the data points involving revisions, which may be important to keep in mind, is the human element and behavioral differences in the management of the implant by those who recieve it, particularly in light of the different protocols every surgeon seems to use to restrict activity following the surgery.
Along with poor placement, surgeons who are inexperienced, and failures of certain devices (for any number of reasons) some unknown (and potentially unknowable) percentage of failures are certainly attributable to the actions of the persons who get the implant, via not following restrictions, their surgeon providing different restrictions that may increase the risks, weight gains, unforseeable accidents, high impact sports, etc, etc. The very active population who get this done, are, well, very active and will remain that way when/if they can, which is completely understandable and expected, but that personality type does raise the risk of failure, just by virtue of who they are, and how they choose to live their lives, and doing what is very important to them. Very active persuits like many here undertake, love and live for are going to cause failures for some people, at some point.
Conversely those who are much less active are not really condidates for this procedure, therefore impacting the statistics in the other direction for retention by individuals who do not put the implant to the test in very active persuits, and therefore would seemingly have a lower risk of activity-induced failures. Many who get THR are in that population group, it would seem.
That is not a statement "blaming the victim" on any level, just an acknowledgement of the high level drive to be incredibly active many who get this done have, that adds to the overall stats on performance and revisions, based simply on the target population characteristics.
Hi Dan
Sorry if I am being redundant here
Would you be interested in sharing email addresses since have the same surgeon?
Tim Cunningham
Hay Tim check your PM'S mate
Danny
Tim;
Just shot you a message through this site with my contact info, very happy to help in any way I can.
Thanks
Dan
Tim,
If you want to contact someone personally, click on their name, then click "Send personal message".
Cherz
Kiwi
Thanks everyone. I know the percentage of people that have had failures of their hip resurfacing is low but when you are one of those people, numbers really don't matter.
I was lucky to find this site before my first hip resurfacing and found it very informative and supportive. However since all my problems, that were ongoing, I found myself coming on less and less and I've missed the support. I can't join in conversations because my experience has not been good and I don't want to frighten people who are about to have surgery. I have had to bite my tongue often because I have felt that people have at times dismissed the problems that are going on. Maybe it's my issue, I've found it difficult at work too. I am an RN/case manager and occasionally work in the Swedish Orthopedic Institute where I have had all my surgeries. I have had to assist patients with their discharge plans after hip resurfacing and I have had to keep very quiet. I am hardly the poster child for hip resurfacing ;D
Before my first surgery my PCP told me that I was the Orthopods dream as I was young and had no other health issues. Ha, little did we know! Here I am 3 years later and once again in recovery mode.
I have, of course, been reading and researching all the data and information on failures and I am sure I interpret what I read differently from people whose implants have not failed. I have made connections with other people who have had failures of their resurfacing. There are some horror stories out there and I consider myself quite lucky compared to some others. I have had Failures of my S&N BHRs and have had the exact symptoms as people with the recalled Depuy ASR implants. I have been in contact with Barry Meier, the NYT journalist and am grateful to him for the articles he is publishing. I now see a light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in 3 years but I also want some answers.
I have looked at the site for people with Total hip replacements but there is never a lot of activity on there. I will still hover around on here. I like to read peoples stories and hear about their successes and I wish everyone luck. I am hoping that I'll be hiking in the Spring and snowshoeing and skiing next season.
Luanna, I'd love to meet up with you, once I'm fully mobile again. I'm still walking with a cane but hope to get rid of it soon forever.
Hi Barbara,
Sounds good to me. My schedule is flexible....very flexible. Just let me know what works for you and I'll head your direction.
Luanna