+-

Advertisements

Welcome Back

The Hip Talk Discussion Forum was hacked a few weeks back. It has taken me a long time to fix it. The only backup I could use was way back to April 2020. All members and posts up to that date are available. Anything newer has been lost. I am sorry, but that has been the only way to get things up and running again.

Author Topic: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009  (Read 4849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

way2slow

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« on: August 30, 2010, 05:01:55 PM »
Hey all,
I am moving forward towards bilateral hip resurfacing and read some concerning info from the subject report re the Biomet Recap.  It shows the Biomet Recap prosthesis with a higher revision rate than Durom and ASR, both of which have been removed by the FDA. Recap has a 5% and 7.6% revision rate at years 1 and 3 respectively. BHR on the otherhand shows 1.5% and 2.5% over this same time frame. Dr Gross, whom I am considering for my upcoming surgery, uses the Biomet Recap.  Anyone else read this report and share similar concerns? Is this not an issue? Kevin

resurface

  • Guest
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2010, 10:02:24 PM »
Kevin

I have not read the report but my thinking goes as follows - Why risk it?   The BHR (or Cormet) have been successfully implanted.  BHR most widely implanted with Cormet basically being a copy with improved instruments. 

Best of luck...

obxpelican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • ~Welcome to SixBurgh~
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2010, 11:04:18 PM »
I would not worry about the device as much as I would the doctor/device combined failure record, Dr. Gross is simply a no brainer, he's got an extremely low failure rate with the biomet/resurfacing combo, he's a magician.  You cannot beat the hospital, the staff and his office staff.  You won't find a better surgical assistant than Lee Web.   Post-op pain is minimal because of the way he injects his special concoction of drugs into your hip area.   I never felt more pain post op than I did pre-op.

You can give a poor doctor a BHR and fail, or you can give a device to a doctor that others have had trouble with and have great results.  You have to watch those numbers, for instance, who did the biomets?



Chuck


Hey all,
I am moving forward towards bilateral hip resurfacing and read some concerning info from the subject report re the Biomet Recap.  It shows the Biomet Recap prosthesis with a higher revision rate than Durom and ASR, both of which have been removed by the FDA. Recap has a 5% and 7.6% revision rate at years 1 and 3 respectively. BHR on the otherhand shows 1.5% and 2.5% over this same time frame. Dr Gross, whom I am considering for my upcoming surgery, uses the Biomet Recap.  Anyone else read this report and share similar concerns? Is this not an issue? Kevin
Chuck
RH/Biomet U/C Dr. Gross/Lee Webb
8-6-08

John C

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2010, 05:12:34 AM »
I recently did an extensive reply on this issue on a personal email. I am sorry that I don't have the time to go into the depth of response that I did at that time, but here is the short version of it. There were just over 100 Biomet procedures reviewed in that study, and most had been performed in the past two years. From the statistics we know that they were performed by more than one doctor, though we do not know exactly how many. If we make a conservative estimate that there were three or four doctors involved, this would mean that they have averaged only about thirty or forty cases each, so they are very early in their learning curve. Also, most of the failures were happening in the first year, so even though the study does not specify, it is likely that femoral neck fracture was a common problem, which is often linked to surgeon inexperience.
Bottom line; it appears that most of these failures were happening with surgeons that were very new to the procedure, and the early failure rates would also seem to coincide with problems encountered by inexperienced surgeons.
There is another study out of Australia that shows that complications are many times higher in hospitals that do fewer procedures, and that would fit in well with these results.
Especially when on looks at the high success of Biomet in the hands of an extremely experienced surgeon like Dr. Gross, it would seem like the Biomet numbers from the Aust. Registry tell us a lot more about the failure rate with inexperienced surgeons, than it does about a brand of implant.
I am just another patient trying to make heads or tails of the research, but this is my take on this case.
John/ Left uncemented Biomet/ Dr Gross/ 6-16-08
Right uncemented Biomet/Dr Gross/ 4/25/18

resurface

  • Guest
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2010, 08:35:48 AM »
To keep a conversation going... Those seem to be big assumptions.  One could conversly assume that the surgeons who implanted the Biomet device were experienced at resurfacing but not with this Biomet implant.  Is the technique different?  I don't know.  The problem with the data is that no one knows and the assumption is that these failures are surgeon based issues.  I am assuming that these early 100 cases were done by experienced surgeons.  Why?  Medical device companies typically go to their most experienced surgeons when they first launch a product.  These tend to be the surgeon who will be part of their training programs, have better technique, understand how to evaluate early product offerings, etc.  I agree that the surgeon is foremost as far as selection.  Again, the big question from my side is, is it worth taking a chance given all that is well documented about the BHR? 

The big advantage that I hear about cementless is that it may last longer; it may ultimately fit better due to bone ingrowth as opposed to cement... but these are yet to be proven.  Just a few thoughts from a contrarian perspective.

way2slow

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2010, 12:53:25 PM »
Thanks all for your input. I hope to have a conversation w Dr Gross in the next week or so and will let you know what his comments are regarding this issue. Kevin

obxpelican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • ~Welcome to SixBurgh~
Re: Low BIOMET Scores on the Australian Ortho Registry 2009
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2010, 01:42:19 PM »
If those procedures were done by such experienced surgeons then why the failure rate?  Is doctor Gross that good with those implants or are those doctors just that bad? 

With failure rates that high I would say it was probably experienced doctors who just were not that good.  This happens, I've seen doctors who who were "experienced" who have high failure rates, all you need though is one doctor with a handful of failures and he alone can blow the statistics.

Like I said earlier, Doctor Gross is a no brainer, if you like the idea of uncemented you'll do well with him.


Chuck
Chuck
RH/Biomet U/C Dr. Gross/Lee Webb
8-6-08

 

Recent Posts

Advertisements

Donate Thru Pay Pal

Surface Hippy Gear

Accordion Player Pat Webmaster/Owner

Owner/Webmaster of Surface Hippy

Statcounter

View My Stats

Powered by EzPortal