It appears that both BHR and Biomet are very similar in design as far as their cemented device. I believe both units are of exceptional quality and proper installation by an experienced doctor would be a far more important decision. However, Biomet set themselves apart by offering the first FDA approved uncemented femoral device under the direction of Dr. Gross.
Inside the Biomet femoral cap is roughened titanium porous plasma spray coating to promote bone ingrowth. This is enhanced by the addition of a coating of 'Hydroxyapatite'. Coatings of hydroxyapatite are often applied to metallic implants (most commonly titanium/titanium alloys and stainless steels) to alter the surface properties. In this manner the body sees hydroxyapatite-type material which it is happy to accept. Without the coating the body would see a foreign body and work in such a way as to isolate it from surrounding tissues. (BHR uses this now on their acetabular commponet but not on the femural cap) This raises the question... if it works well for the acetabular why not the femoral device?
Again, this new technology has not yet been proven to be any better (or worse) in the long run. (though it has been proven superior in the acetabular component) However, in the few short years it has been implanted the performance of the Biomet has been equal to the BHR. Only time will tell which one will be a longer lasting method.
It appears both units use the same materials at a very high standard of manufacture.
BHR... Produced using the investment casting process from high carbon cobalt chrome in the As Cast micro-structural condition.
http://www.surfacehippy.info/bhr.phpBiomet...As-cast, high carbon/high carbide, CoCr substrate
http://www.biomet.co.uk/medhome-uk/hip/hips-early-intervention/recap4Good luck with whatever you choose!
Don C