Interesting comparison study

[John C]

I came across this interesting study comparing some different brands over on the Yahoo site. The ASR results were no surprise, but the ConservePlus looks very good in this study. I noticed that Dr De Smet was involved in the study, so his skills might be one reason that the ConservePlus did so well.
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IH7mTSNdtK2PYQmjYBNagBA-eUvuuXQ-E7vDm6KiR9vAykhrjfFtTak_Wm1kp9byazNSwvLmWMUs5_7GmgHWZwmMtQ3R0Q/Metals/CobaltChromeTestResults.pdf

[Lopsided]

John, this link does not work (at least not for me). Can you find the document again, and paste it in here, or even upload it, if that can be done?

D.

[newdog]

lop,

Doesn't work for me either.

John,

I would be really interested in seeing this. Thanks.

[John C]

Sorry about that. I have tried another way to attach the link at the bottom of this post. If that does not work, here is the reference number for the study, along with the abstract. Unfortunately I could not figure out a way to attach the results table, which contains the specific data. Hopefully the link will work this time.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):164-71.

Abstract
We sought to establish the incidence of joint failure secondary to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following
metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in a large, three surgeon, multicentre study involving 4226 hips with a follow-up of 10
to 142 months. Three implants were studied: the Articular Surface Replacement; the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing;
and the Conserve Plus. Retrieved implants underwent analysis using a co-ordinate measuring machine to determine
volumetric wear. There were 58 failures associated with ARMD. The median chromium and cobalt concentrations in
the failed group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a failure rate
in the patients with Articular Surface Replacement of 12.8% [corrected] at five years, compared with < 1% at five
years for the Conserve Plus and 1.5% at ten years for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Two ARMD patients had
relatively low wear of the retrieved components. Increased wear from the metal-on-metal bearing surface was
associated with an increased rate of failure secondary to ARMD. However, the extent of tissue destruction at revision
surgery did not appear to be dose-related to the volumetric wear.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IH7mTSNdtK2PYQmjYBNagBA-eUvuuXQ-E7vDm6KiR9vAykhrjfFtTak_Wm1kp9byazNSwvLmWMUs5_7GmgHWZwmMtQ3R0Q/Metals/CobaltChromeTestResults.pdf

[Lopsided]

John,

The link does not work, it might only work if logged into the site as you. But still I would really like to read the article.

From the reference and abstract you have pasted in, I have found many references from searching on the internet. But all of them either want credit card details to pay for it, or redirect to other sites which expect payment. I hope I don't sound cheap on this, but I did actually pay for my operation and the device.

I am sure it would be more than just Steve and me that are interested in this article, so if it is at all convenient, can you find a way to post the article here?

• Can you paste in the entire contents?
• When you view the article yourself, can you save it to your computer and then upload it here?
• Which Yahoo site was it on, and how did you find your way to the article?

Cheers,
Dan

[John C]

Hi Dan,
I tried to copy and paste the entire study, but as you saw, only the abstract worked.
I will try attaching one more direct link which hopefully will take you to the Yahoo site:  http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/surfacehippy/files/Metals/

If that fails, here is how to find it on the web, though you will probably need to create a user name, and log in:
Go to Yahoo Groups.
For group, type in "Surfacehippy"
Once you are in the Surfacehippy group site, go to the left side and click on "Files".
Go down the list to "Metals" and click on that.
That should bring up the "CobaltChrome Test Results.pdf". Click on that, and you will see the study.

I know that you had a ConservePlus with Dr DeSmet, so I am sure that you will enjoy reading the study. Sorry for all the trouble.

[newdog]

John,

It still doesn't work for me either. Sorry to be a pain, but it does sound like an interesting article. I'll try your new directions. Thanks.

[nekko]

Hi Gentlemen,

Try this link:
http://www.hip-clinic.com/medi/docs/BHRCONSERVEFINAL_LOWRES.PDF?phpMyAdmin=8d8fa970cf01362ac617f05cfca3169d

Hoping it will work

[nekko]

New method:

Click and paste this in your browser window:

http://www.hip-clinic.com/media/docs/BHRCONSERVEFINAL_LOWRES.PDF?phpMyAdmin=8d8fa970cf01362ac617f05cfca3169d

[Lopsided]

Nekko, I am aware of that document. It is also on this site somewhere too, and it is interesting.

John, your link did work for me. I understand that you have to be a member of the Yahoo group.

Yes, as a De Smet Conserve hippy, both these documents give me a distinct ego boost.

Thank you.

D.

[Lopsided]

Here are the two charts that came after the abstract:

(I think you have to click on them to enlarge them)

[gary2010]

The first thing I noticed about that study was the huge variation in angles, slightly smaller for the C+ but in both cases the mean was outside the working range  of 40-45*; it would be good to have the standard deviation as well. I would expect significant wear on any device at 70* angle. Somewhere on this site is a comparison by DE Smet in which he explains his reasons for preferring C+, the comparison is against S&N BHR rather than finsbury however. Finsbury is now owned by DuPuy so lets hope they don't mess with it.