Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hello, I am suffering from RA since 12 yrs and have very bad left hip. Hip Joint Replacement is the only solution as per my surgeon. I was reading about this Hip Resurfacing option. I am from India and hip resurfacing is a very new concept here in India. My OS has asked me whether I would be interested in hip resurfacing and I am not able to decide since the expertise is lacking here due to this being a new concept. I would appreciate if anybody can help me with details of any first hand experience as well as the time for recovery, longievity of the replaced joint in addition to whether I should instead go in for THR. Is it a difficult procedure compared to THR and also what is the general opinion of the Orth. Surgeons. AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Hi AC, There is a surgeon that some in the surfacehippy group have gone to. I pasted this from a message on surfacehippy " Apollo Hospitals in India Chemmai dr vijay Bose " . For more information on resurfacing check out http://www.ActiveJoints.com and the link for surfacehippy is surfacehippy/ Surfacehippy was formed by the same person that formed Joint Replacement Surgery. If you put a query into surfacehippy you will get many responses to your questions. There are also links at surfacehippy where you can get the history and some studies. Hip resurfacing in its present form has been done since 1991 and improved in 1996/1997. I believe that the present generation of resurfacing started in England. So far the results look good with failure rates lower than THR for the same number of years. The incidence of dislocation is lower than metal/poly and ceramic THR devices as the resurfacing device is much larger. Other advantages are: less bone loss (the neck of the femur is not cut off as it is with THR, no stress shielding and thigh pain associated with THR and fewer restrictions than THR. The recovery is quicker than the THR with the press fit stem. Recovery rates vary but most people are back to work anywhere from three to six weeks. Resurfacing is a more difficult surgery than THR. You will want to find a surgeon that has alot of experience. I'm not sure how many procedures Dr. Bose has done. I think that I was around number 300 for my surgeon, Dr. Gross. There are doctors in europe that have done thousands. Best of luck, Fred Dr. Gross, C2K 1/21/04 > > > Hello, > > I am suffering from RA since 12 yrs and have very bad left hip. Hip > Joint Replacement is the only solution as per my surgeon. I was > reading about this Hip Resurfacing option. I am from India and hip > resurfacing is a very new concept here in India. My OS has asked me > whether I would be interested in hip resurfacing and I am not able to > decide since the expertise is lacking here due to this being a new > concept. > > I would appreciate if anybody can help me with details of any first > hand experience as well as the time for recovery, longievity of the > replaced joint in addition to whether I should instead go in for THR. > Is it a difficult procedure compared to THR and also what is the > general opinion of the Orth. Surgeons. > > AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Lela: I would suggest you post your question on the Group SurfaceHippy - surfacehippy/ - I think you will get plenty of responses. There is no evidence that the femoral head " dies " when the " cap " is applied - in fact, someone recently posted a link to an article reporting on a study in that very area. The procedure does have a relatively short history - only about 10 years (in Europe) and less in the US. Why do it - - Range of motion - the large femoral ball and near natural biomechanics make for totally natural gait and range of motion. - Low risk of dislocation - the large ball is very resistant to dislocation. - Natural loading of the leg bones - the stresses and loads applied to the leg bones are very natural. There is very little incidence of stress shielding in resurfaced patients. - Preservation of bone - by preserving the maximum amount of bone, you preserve your options for future surgery, if it is necessary. - Philosophy - it is less invasive - it doesn't require cutting off the top of the femur and reaming out the femoral canal. This appeals to some people. There also may be a reduced risk of deep vein thrombosis because the femoral canal is not breached. Risks - - Failure - if it fails you would end up with a Total Hip Replacement - no worse off except for one additional surgery. - Metal Ions - everyone is talking about concerns about metal ions. The resurfacing devices are made of the same Cobalt Chrome alloy as most other implants. It should be identical to the material used in the new metal on metal THR systems. It is still an unknown due to the relatively short time these devices have been used. Studies seem to show metal ions in the bloodstream are no more than you would get from a typical multi-vitamin. But it is an unknown and should not be taken lightly. I am relatively young. My resurfacing was done a little less than 9 months ago. I am doing things I haven't been able to do for years. There is no sensation of anything foreign or different - I can't tell I have an " artificial " hip. I have no restrictions. I am a VERY satisfied customer (can you tell?). Check out the SurfaceHippy Group - you will find I'm not the only one. Happy Holidays! (48) RC2K Dr. Gross 3/24/04 > > > i've been told i'm a candidate for a total hip replacement and my > surgeon argues against hip resurfacing because of the short history > and the probability of femoral head necrosis after the cap is applied. > with the negative information i've received from from him i wonder > why anyone would chose hip resurfacing - please can someone give me > the positive side of the argument? > > thanks > > lela b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Lela: One other note. Since your orthopedic surgeon almost certainly doesn't perform resurfacing, I would suggest you at least consult with one who does perform the procedure to hear the other side of the story. There is a list of surgeons on the Active Joints web site at: http://www.activejoints.com/hip-resurfacing.html Many of them will review x-rays and consult on the phone for no charge or a very minimal fee. (48) RC2K Dr. Gross 3/24/04 > > > i've been told i'm a candidate for a total hip replacement and my > surgeon argues against hip resurfacing because of the short history > and the probability of femoral head necrosis after the cap is applied. > with the negative information i've received from from him i wonder > why anyone would chose hip resurfacing - please can someone give me > the positive side of the argument? > > thanks > > lela b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.