Hi hipnhop,
You mentioned something in an earlier post on this thread that may have been misworded. You said "The longevity of the device for active patients seems to be about ten years".
Most studies show survival rates of well over 90% at ten years, with some up in the high 90s, and the worst I saw was a study that showed active patients at around 89% survival rate. That means that, conservatively speaking, 9 out of 10 are still going strong at ten years, and can hope for much longer life out of the prosthesis, though there is not much data beyond that point. It is true that some THRs in young active patients have shown higher failure rates at around 10 years, but that is the very reason that we have chosen resurfacing.
While it is true that a few people may need a revision in the first ten years, results so far would show that for the vast majority of active patients, the longevity of resurfacing devices goes well beyond ten years. Though it is still too soon to know just how long we can keep that survivorship up around 90%, I have not seen any evidence yet that would indicate that it could not continue for many years or decades. The only glimpse we have into the possibilities is Dr Pritchett's report on early MOM resurfacings that showed nearly 100% survival at 20+ years. That report is available on Pat's site, though much of the information in it is probably not too relevant to modern resurfacing prostheses.
Just don't want active people to get the impression that they can expect their resurfacing to need revision at 10 years, since that is only in a small minority of cases at this point.