2 Year Study for Uncemented Femoral Components by Dr. Gross 2010

[Pat Walter]

I just posted Dr. Gross's new 2 year study about his work with uncemented femoral components.  He has concluded that at 2 years, the revision rate for uncemented vs cemented is the same.

To quote Dr. Gross: "At this point with nearly 2-year follow-up data on a matched group of patients, I see no difference in results whether cement or uncemented fixation is used. At this point we can be fairly certain that bone ingrowth has occurred in these components. Except for two cases where osteonecrosis occurred in the femoral head at 1 year, we have had no failures of bone ingrowth in 430 patients that have are at least one year postop, and 157 that are at least two years postop."

The study is posted here  http://www.surfacehippy.info/uncemented2yearstudygross10.php

I think the study is very informative.

Pat

[Lopsided]

I have already decided that when I have my resurfacing, I will get one that is fully uncement. I don't really know why, of all the various variations in the devices around, I just seem to prefer to get one without cement. The Biomet seems to be the main one.

In Thailand, they only have the Birmingham, which I am sure is very good, but I do not want. I might well travel. Dr. De Smet has already said that he can do the Biomet, so I will probably go there.

Has anyone here had the Biomet by Dr. De Smet or an other surgeons near or in England?

Dan

[obxpelican]

Pat,

Thanks for posting that, indeed it's good news for all, it's possibly going to be the gold standard in the next 5-10 years.  I'm sure some doctors will be more cautious in switching but it just seems to make sense that our own bone would hold better than a foreign material like methylmethacrylate.

Time will tell though, I wake up every morning looking for any components that have fallen out-------------- None so far  ;-)

Of course, maybe in 10 years doctors will find a way for our cartlidge to grow in our hips like they have with animals.

Chuck

I just posted Dr. Gross's new 2 year study about his work with uncemented femoral components.  He has concluded that at 2 years, the revision rate for uncemented vs cemented is the same.

To quote Dr. Gross: "At this point with nearly 2-year follow-up data on a matched group of patients, I see no difference in results whether cement or uncemented fixation is used. At this point we can be fairly certain that bone ingrowth has occurred in these components. Except for two cases where osteonecrosis occurred in the femoral head at 1 year, we have had no failures of bone ingrowth in 430 patients that have are at least one year postop, and 157 that are at least two years postop."

The study is posted here  http://www.surfacehippy.info/uncemented2yearstudygross10.php

I think the study is very informative.

Pat

[stevel]

This is a small sample size for a relatively short time interval compared to BHR results.
Cemented BHR's are holding even for the 1997 installations (12 years of use) and some rather abusive use by athletes with lesser durations.
I wonder if Dr. Gross is the only one installing uncemented Biomets worldwide?
Several uncemented sockets have failed lately due to lack of bone growth.
Supposedly an uncemented socket is foolproof for either a hip resurfacing or THR.
A main reason cemented THR shafts fell out of favor is because the shaft was do difficult to extricate when it was time to revise after the polyethelene socket liner wore out after about 15 years of use, plus or minus.
For total knee replacements, the metal components are cemented.

But technology marches on and unless somebody tries something new, there will be no progress.

[obxpelican]

When Gross's uncemented hips hit over 1200 and 3 years out I'll be satisfied that uncemented is either the equal to or superior to cemented.

Personally I've read that the cups that fail are doctors errors, all, even the experienced doctors have a small amount socket failures, from what I hear Su, Mont, Gross and even the overseas doctors have had sockets fail, nobody is perfect everytime, although those same experienced doctors probably have a < 1% chance of their sockets failing.

THR shafts now because of the bony growth in many cases have to be pounded out sometimes causing the femur to crack sometimes, bones hold very tightly..... I had some hardware in my femur due to a break in 1981, in 1983 the doctor had a heck of a time removing the metal screws and hardware and it was so bad he left 2 screws in my femur.

You must realize Steve, the reason HRs are around is that we want to have an option other than having to revise our THRs down the road, which can be a complicated surgery, now with MOM HRs some are thinking we may not have to revise to a THR.  Even MOM THRs have the possiblity of lasting a lifetime now.

Me, I am going to wait for another year before I'll say that I chose the best option available to me at the time, until then I have an extreme amount of optimism.

Hopefully, some day, researchers will find a better way to treat osteo arthritis.

Let's all be glad that we all had options.


Chuck