login
Total Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing ?
-
No new posts
 2014-12-15 12:28 PM |
Member 24 St. Paul, Minnesota |  Subject: Total Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing ?Diagnosis: Osteoarthritis, FAI (CAM) Prognosis: Total Hip Replacement (THR) or Hip Resurfacing Patient: 45 year old male, 6'1", 225lbs, active, healthy and good bone density. The purpose of my post is to hopefully get some feedback from others who have or are in my specific situation between choosing a Total Hip Replacement (Anterior Birmingham) or Hip Resurfacing. Specifically, what were your driving factors and what were you told about restrictions and longevity. how long did you have to wait before your Dr. could actually perform procedure. Lastly, thanks for your consideration and please feel free to chime in with any other considerations you think are pertinent that I'm over looking or need to address consider further as well ( i.e.. mfg.). My gut instinct is more towards THR but I think I need to be a bit more logical rather than how I feel when making this decision. Additional info: I have spoken with two hip surgeons and one of the two never brought up resurfacing so I guess he's not a fan. After realizing I would be a candidate for this type of procedure the second Dr. said that I don’t want resurfacing. He sited recalls, metal on metal and that the socket is all one piece, compared to a traditional THR that has a modular socket. Modular allows the liner to be just replaced in the event it wears down. He said in resurfacing that not only does the entire socket have to be replaced, but the ball as well for alignment purposes. Both surgeons have done about 3000 THR's. One doctor's schedule was about four and half months out and the other about 2 and half months out. One is a "Top Dr." from a longstanding community publication and are chosen by their peers. One doctor claims that there are NO restrictions and that it should last 25 years. The other said very light running and it could last 25 to 35 years. These figures seem to be all over the board and I've had PT's in the past tell me 10-15 years. I do realize a lot probably depend on lifestyle/activities, etc. (3.jpg) (2.png) (1.jpg) Attachments ---------------- 3.jpg (792KB - 11 downloads) 2.png (799KB - 12 downloads) 1.jpg (975KB - 9 downloads) |
| 2014-12-16 6:55 AM in reply to: 0 |
82 | Subject: RE: Total Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing ? What are your current problems? Just pain or restricted ROM? Is the joint deemed end of life? edit (first xray looks pretty bad at upper anterior region) I am hearing more and more about hips lasting 40 years plus and there is growing 'evidence' that running does not really seem to make a difference to implant lifespan. Surgeons are cautious and so generally recommend no running although that is starting to change. A surgeon will these days generally say implant life of 25 to 30 yrs again to be cautious - there are tons of 40 + year old implants still working fine today and look how materials have changed since the mid 70's This could well be your forever hip edit (i just saw your age) Edited by chewymix 2014-12-16 7:03 AM |
| 2014-12-17 2:20 PM in reply to: chewymix |
Member 2689   Denver, CO | Subject: RE: Total Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing ? Not sure if this is the same thing you're talking about or not, but I had the femur head resurfaced to prevent cartilage damage and avoid--or at least delay--a replacement. It was done at the same time a labral tear was repaired. There was also some impingement going on, which was also repaired. I ended up having the labrum repaired a 2nd time after tearing it again 6 months post-op (very rare per my surgeon). The surgeon did a little more bone revision at that time and the recovery time was definitely shorter due to decreased pain. Other than the labral tear and impingement, the rest of the cartilage was in good shape. I specifically went to a surgeon who works with athletes. I was 43 when I had the 1st surgery and 44 when I had the 2nd. Prior to both surgeries, I couldn't stand or walk for more than ~15 min. without pain. Typical recovery is back to normal function in a few months, maximum improvement in a year. Good luck! |
| 2015-02-21 1:53 AM in reply to: laffinrock |
Member 30 | Subject: RE: Total Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing ? Docs tend to be conservative by nature, so that 's why they underrate implants. The choice between resurfacing v traditional THR is sometimes more the familiarity of the surgeon than anything else. Some general orthos don't like doing new stuff because they've seen it fail prematurely. If your femoral neck is in good shape, then you're probably a good fit for resurfacing. But, bear in mind that the traditional hips, like was pointed out above, have been known to last decades. The durability and lifespan are really tied to the surgeon's own competency, and to a lesser extent materials. A surgeon putting in a tried and true implant that they like will probably have a better prognosis overall than one that he is not as familiar with. There are also mid stem hips. They are smaller and shorter than the traditional railroad spikes that get banged into the geriatric set. If you are 45 and in need of a hip, they will try everything in their power to keep you from running on it either way. Also, I'm not a medical professional. I have been involved in implant design for about ten years though. I can tell you that the surgeon's own proficiency will really determine your overall outcome. I've seen surgeons get goaded into implants that they are not comfortable with and end up with less than desirable outcomes. |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK