Author Topic: Wright C+ v. Birmingham  (Read 4681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« on: July 21, 2008, 07:17:49 PM »
Can anyone tell me about any significant pluses or minuses of these two devices?  Does the type of device used have any bearing on the type of procedure, ie. posterior v. anterior, performed?

Big Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2008, 07:44:18 PM »
MikeM --- Most of the devices are very similiar...it really depends which device you want (do your homework) or what the surgeon uses or recommends.  The approach is how the surgeon was trained or holds expertise in. It can also mean the manner of which the hip is diclocated. You seem to be on the right track...do the research, find a doc that is pro resurfacing with significant experience, that you are willing to trust !  Again, Best of luck!

          Big Bill C.A.S.H.  8)

John C

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Re: Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2008, 08:08:52 PM »
I spent a whole year researching the differences between all of the different brands, and there are more differences than you would realize at first glance. Things such as straight stem vs tapered stem, round or chamfered interior of the femoral cap, different coatings for bone ingrowth, cemented or cementless, different thicknesses and clearances, different size ranges, and the endless controversy over whether "heat treated" vs "as cast" really matters. Places such as the Australian Registry will give you a listing of failure rates with the different brands over thousands of cases, but it is difficult to separate out the factor of the surgeons' skill, experience and training. None of us on this site are really qualified to give advice on this, so I think your choice is whether to pick a surgeon and go with his recommendation, or really do some serious homework and come up with your choice of implants, and find a surgeon to match. If your are lucky, the two will coincide.
The approach is definitely up to the surgeons preference. I have spoken to surgeons will install either of the brands that you mentioned, and will give you a choice of which approach you would like with either brand.
John/ Left uncemented Biomet/ Dr Gross/ 6-16-08
Right uncemented Biomet/Dr Gross/ 4/25/18

Big Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2008, 10:30:20 PM »
John C--- doing your homework is a good thing ----have you had resurfacing???

             Big Bill -- Cormet Anterior Surface Hippy-- C.A.S.H.  8)


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2008, 10:54:32 PM »

« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 12:00:08 PM by Ausag32 »

Pat Walter

  • Patricia Walter
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3934
  • Owner/Webmaster of Surface Hippy
    • Surface Hippy about Hip Resurfacing
Re: Wright C+ v. Birmingham
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2008, 11:27:42 AM »
Ausag32  is a sales rep for hip resurfacing devices.

I have asked him to continue posting as long as he will sign his real name and the company he is a representative for.

I feel Hip Talk is a place to exchange information and welcome input from Medical Companies and Respresentatives - as long as they identify themselves so people understand why they have the point of view that they do.

I will give Ausage32 the opportunity to add his name and company affiliation to his replies himself.

I think the doctors and representatives can add a lot of information for people as long as we know who we are talking to. I appreciate the time they take to visit Hip Talk.

Pat - Owner/Webmaster of Surface Hippy

Webmaster/Owner of Surface Hippy
3/15/06 LBHR De Smet



Recent Posts

Donate Thru Pay Pal

Surface Hippy Gear


Patricia Walter- Piano Player Pat

Powered by EzPortal