Did you see this Warning: Hip Resurfacing article in the NY Times yesterday?

[Roberta]

Hi Roberta - I am modifying your post.  I am sorry.

I am sorry, but I have removed your article.  You can't post articles since they have a copyright.

Also, we have had this discussion many times.  I know you are new, but the NY Times has been posting this stuff for almost 2 years.  It is not new information and makes hip resurfacing look bad.  Even small women can have a sucessful hip resurfacing.  The stats show they do have the most problems, but in the hands of skilled surgeons, it is still possible with good outcomes. 

You can see the actual results of the info from the national registries which I have posted in several places.  http://www.surfacehippy.info/nationalregistries.php

You have no way to understand this is old news that just won't go away.  They NY times and media is trying it's best to stop hip resurfacing.  Most of the negative information is about metal on metal THRs and they just include hip resurfacing.  You can see the real stats on the link above.

Please don't sit nights bitting your fingernails and worrying.  Hip Resurfacing in the hands of the experienced surgeons is still doing very well.  The whole overall retention rate at 10 years is 94%    That is about the same as a THR.  The articles don't talk about the revision rates for THRs.  Young men have the highest revisions rates with THRs.

There just are no perfect hip replacements.  That's the fact.  So you choose what seems best at the time.  The media makes people think THRs are the proper solution - but they ahve about the same revision rates as resurfacing.  Again, some groups have more problems with resurfacing like small women and MEN while young men have a diffiuclt cime with THRS.

You choose what seems best at the time and have a really experienced surgeon perform the surgery.  THRs can be poorly done too. I have some studies showing that placement and proper cup angles are just as important in THRs.

So it comes down to what is best at the time you need help. I have a replaced aortic valve that will only last 10 - 15 years.  Then I have to go thru open heart surgery to have it replaced if I want to live.  I accept that.  Sometimes we just have to do what is best at the time.  The old valves lasted even less time.  Trust me that open heart surgery is much more diffiuclt than hip surgery and takes a lot longer to recover from.  I know since I have done both.

Stay positive and decide to live your life as active as you can with your new hip/s.  The best solution in my opinon.

Pat

[hernanu]

Hi Roberta - This is an ongoing set of articles from Barry Meier, based on the UK study. It has been challenged before, and I consider it to be scare tactics by an unscrupulous reporter (personal opinion).

There are large sets of data that contradict this finding like the Australian registry results. It is true that in smaller women there are more failures, but that is a relative term. The success rates are overwhelmingly high, with the highest being people who can take a cup that is larger. The success rate also is affected by the skill of the surgeon and the number of procedures done. I would like to know for the UK study what the statistics were for the doctors performing the procedures. I would think that McMinn, Treacy, et. al. were not part of that study.

This series of attacks on HR by the Times has lowered my opinion of the paper. I don't see the names McMinn, Gross, Pritchett, Bose, Su (who is in the same city) quoted or asked for an opinion. There is no real effort expended to look beyond one study to a much larger sample available in other countries.

No one is trying to avoid the real questions and issues; there are more failures with smaller devices. This speaks to the level of skill demanded for placement of the device, but properly skilled and committed surgeons have success with smaller patients because they have the right skill set to place it and attach it correctly.

To me it speaks of yellow journalism, based on some true concerns. These concerns are why many people on here emphasize selection of your surgeon as a crucial thing.

[Pat Walter]

I removed the copy of the article Roberta posted.  I am sorry to do that, but this is old news and an ongoing campaign against hip resurfacing.  We have had long, long, long discussion about this in the past.  If you do a search you can find the many posts.

I just don't like to keep giving the NY Times so much exposure on my website.  Between it and the lawyers, we could lose our option of hip resurfacing.  I hope that never happens.  Since the overall retention rate of the BHR at 10 years worldwide is 94%, I believe the discussion group should reflect that.  So we only need to dwell on this type of half truth articles for 6% of the time.  Enough about the half truths - read the thousands of great stories I have posted about great outcomes.  Some very old. 

http://www.surfacehippy.info/hip-resurfacing/

http://www.surfacehippy.info/hipstories.php

Read the real information in the national registries

http://www.surfacehippy.info/nationalregistries.php

Listen to the top surgeons discuss hip resurfacing and how sucessful it really is

http://www.surfacehippy.info/shvideos/videos.php

I have spent the last 7 years trying to spread the postive information and stories about hip resurfacing and that's the goal I still have for this website and discussion group.

Pat