NYTimes article June 26

[halfdone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/health/26innovate.html?hpw

sigh

[Anniee]

This article talks about metal debris as if bits an pieces of metal are flaking off the metal on metal implants.  Not quite the same thing as metal ions... 

[hipnhop]

It doesn;t make sense to me. Of course we are going to face revision - we are younger and more active than your average 70 year old. I plan on wearing this thing out in 10 to 15 years. I was never promised that it would last a lifetime. At least my revision will be a lot easier than if I had a THR. Much ado about nothing.

[hernanu]

I think they're focusing on the DePuy recall, but one word game they play is troubling. They mention that MOM resurfacing is twice as likely as THR to fail, but when you look at the statistics that I've seen (please correct if wrong), you're talking about the difference between 1.5% failure rate (THR) to 3% failure rate (HR). It is double the failure rate, but still very small.

Like hip says, I think I may need a revision later, probably to a minihip (not bad), but I expect to get a great quality of life until then.

[newdog]

Who are these surgeons mentioned in the article? Why aren't the big boys interviewed and mentioned? I agree with Anniee, metal particles? They don't mention anything about proper placement of the implants. Then the one surgeon did something like 40 HR surgeries and had problems. Why? Why aren't the experienced guys (and gals) having problems? I wish I could speak in person with whoever did the research for this article. Very bad reporting.   

[halfdone]

Very bad reporting.   

I completely agree ND.  This is poorly researched, sensationalist ****. 

[Lopsided]

It's a nothing article. Not worth discussing.

[ScubaDuck]

This seems to be a reporter looking for information to back up a conclusion they already reached.  I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't started by someone with an axe to grind.

@Lop - unfortunately this is no a nothing article.  The fact that it was published in the NY
Times will give it credence.  Someone that doesn't do their research will conclude this is a horrible thing foisted on unwitting patients by the evil medical community.

I feel that I need to spread the word that there is an alternative to waiting for a THR for younger people.

I for one and going to write to the NY Times and point out the sloppy reporting.  Not citing the statistics or getting some quotes from expert surgeons in HRs is lazy at best and nefarious at best.

Dan

[Lopsided]

Dan, well let us know the outcome.

D.

[nekko]

Who are these surgeons mentioned in the article? Why aren't the big boys interviewed and mentioned?
NewDog, you just raise the right question. 

[FlbrkMike]

Very inflammatory the way he compares MOM to Avandia, which has been linked to heart attacks, stroke and eye damage, and to a heart device that has reportedly caused a dozen or more deaths.  He also calls the FDA order an "emergency study".  I don't recall seeing the word "emergency" anywhere in the FDA order.  Makes it sound like MOM HRs have potentially deadly side effects.

They guy is a definite tool.