RE: Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

[Guest guest]

>Could it be that the FDA testing (and our surgeons' desire for FDA

>approval) makes our doctors spend more time " flushing out " debris

>from the incision site; therefore we don't seem to have the squeaky

>hips??

A very interesting thought Deb! Raises another very interesting question is

it something not only specific to the BHR - but to the surgeon also? Or

perhaps it is just that the more resurfacings a surgeon does the greater the

chance that some of them might turn out to be squeaky?

Sue

[Guest guest]

Deb

I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter in time because

the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the muscle. Nothing to do wiith

nimbleness and dexterity of the surgeon which I'm sure that all nationalities

have the same level. A bigger cut makes life easier/faster to separate the

muscle and to break/remake the joint.

I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there abouts and suffer from Parkinsons. So weight

seems to be of little relevance as does the natural lubricacation of the joint -

the weak muscle factor would also seem low on the agenda. Parkinsons affecting

the 2 latter points.

While the trials are being done in the USA no one will get resurfaced that

isn't a 100% success. Anyone who is in the above 1% doubt category will end up

with a THR (including over 65's). With the Rest of the World everyone is given

a resurf (mostly BHR) no matter what. It gives rise to the odd failure - I was

experimental due to Parkinsons - a higher chance of dislocation due to the

shakes - this is another reason why it was important to me that the muscle

wasn't cut - LESS MUSCLE then higher chance of dislocation - this is the most

likely reason that over 65's in the USA are not having resurfacing (their

ability to naturally rebuild the muscle is not as good as someone younger).

To the point of debris - all surgeons especially with the likes of Mr Treacy

would not want a failure that couldn't be explained - their reputation relies on

it.

DUE to the larger incision their would be less of a chance of debris i.e the

bone is easier to get at.

I therefore think the answer LIES elsewhere.

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

Just a thought, and I don't mean to disparage anyone's surgeon

because we resurfers definitely go to the best OS's in the world....

But I recall several folks boasting about how quickly their Docs

could do a BHR - in under an hour in many cases?

In the US - the surgery seems to take several hours; and I would

like to think our Docs are as nimble and dextrous as their overseas

counterparts....

Could it be that the FDA testing (and our surgeons' desire for FDA

approval) makes our doctors spend more time " flushing out " debris

from the incision site; therefore we don't seem to have the squeaky

hips??

Just a thought..... Deb-with-a-silent-C+-hip

[Guest guest]

Deb

I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter in time because

the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the muscle. Nothing to do wiith

nimbleness and dexterity of the surgeon which I'm sure that all nationalities

have the same level. A bigger cut makes life easier/faster to separate the

muscle and to break/remake the joint.

I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there abouts and suffer from Parkinsons. So weight

seems to be of little relevance as does the natural lubricacation of the joint -

the weak muscle factor would also seem low on the agenda. Parkinsons affecting

the 2 latter points.

While the trials are being done in the USA no one will get resurfaced that

isn't a 100% success. Anyone who is in the above 1% doubt category will end up

with a THR (including over 65's). With the Rest of the World everyone is given

a resurf (mostly BHR) no matter what. It gives rise to the odd failure - I was

experimental due to Parkinsons - a higher chance of dislocation due to the

shakes - this is another reason why it was important to me that the muscle

wasn't cut - LESS MUSCLE then higher chance of dislocation - this is the most

likely reason that over 65's in the USA are not having resurfacing (their

ability to naturally rebuild the muscle is not as good as someone younger).

To the point of debris - all surgeons especially with the likes of Mr Treacy

would not want a failure that couldn't be explained - their reputation relies on

it.

DUE to the larger incision their would be less of a chance of debris i.e the

bone is easier to get at.

I therefore think the answer LIES elsewhere.

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

Just a thought, and I don't mean to disparage anyone's surgeon

because we resurfers definitely go to the best OS's in the world....

But I recall several folks boasting about how quickly their Docs

could do a BHR - in under an hour in many cases?

In the US - the surgery seems to take several hours; and I would

like to think our Docs are as nimble and dextrous as their overseas

counterparts....

Could it be that the FDA testing (and our surgeons' desire for FDA

approval) makes our doctors spend more time " flushing out " debris

from the incision site; therefore we don't seem to have the squeaky

hips??

Just a thought..... Deb-with-a-silent-C+-hip

[Guest guest]

Deb

I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter in time because

the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the muscle. Nothing to do wiith

nimbleness and dexterity of the surgeon which I'm sure that all nationalities

have the same level. A bigger cut makes life easier/faster to separate the

muscle and to break/remake the joint.

I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there abouts and suffer from Parkinsons. So weight

seems to be of little relevance as does the natural lubricacation of the joint -

the weak muscle factor would also seem low on the agenda. Parkinsons affecting

the 2 latter points.

While the trials are being done in the USA no one will get resurfaced that

isn't a 100% success. Anyone who is in the above 1% doubt category will end up

with a THR (including over 65's). With the Rest of the World everyone is given

a resurf (mostly BHR) no matter what. It gives rise to the odd failure - I was

experimental due to Parkinsons - a higher chance of dislocation due to the

shakes - this is another reason why it was important to me that the muscle

wasn't cut - LESS MUSCLE then higher chance of dislocation - this is the most

likely reason that over 65's in the USA are not having resurfacing (their

ability to naturally rebuild the muscle is not as good as someone younger).

To the point of debris - all surgeons especially with the likes of Mr Treacy

would not want a failure that couldn't be explained - their reputation relies on

it.

DUE to the larger incision their would be less of a chance of debris i.e the

bone is easier to get at.

I therefore think the answer LIES elsewhere.

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

Just a thought, and I don't mean to disparage anyone's surgeon

because we resurfers definitely go to the best OS's in the world....

But I recall several folks boasting about how quickly their Docs

could do a BHR - in under an hour in many cases?

In the US - the surgery seems to take several hours; and I would

like to think our Docs are as nimble and dextrous as their overseas

counterparts....

Could it be that the FDA testing (and our surgeons' desire for FDA

approval) makes our doctors spend more time " flushing out " debris

from the incision site; therefore we don't seem to have the squeaky

hips??

Just a thought..... Deb-with-a-silent-C+-hip

[Guest guest]

ladies ten to get more staples (or stitches) than men.

Steves is >9inches, and 24 staples.

[Guest guest]

ladies ten to get more staples (or stitches) than men.

Steves is >9inches, and 24 staples.

[Guest guest]

ladies ten to get more staples (or stitches) than men.

Steves is >9inches, and 24 staples.

[Guest guest]

Hi Deb

As I pointed out in my 1st e-mail I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there about. My

incisions were predictably big - 11 " for the right and 12 " for the left (I am

large boned). I don't know how many staples but they are roughly proportional

to the length of cut.

I may stand corrected but the incision length does help the surgeons team break

and make the joint with most of the muscle intact. With the muscle cut it makes

things easier but this is not usual with BHR..

I was told by the nurses after the first op. that they had seen similar

operations and the leg was first dislocated and rested on top of the other leg

at right angles to it leaving plenty of room to remove the porous surface or

whatever. Men tend to suffer a rather bruised abdominal area during this

process. The general consensus was it would be unlikely (although I suppose

nothing is totally impossible) for any debris to be left - I did ask because I

wished to know these things. All the nurses viewed operations from time to time

and it wasn't a closed to the surgeons team.

It's nice to know that Dr Mont uses a similar approach regarding non cutting of

muscle.

Best regards

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

> Deb

> I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter

in time because the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the

muscle.

Hi Rog! Well, I don't think the length of the incision has much

bearing on the duration of the surgery..... I and many of Dr Mont's

patients have WHOPPERS of scars (mine is 9 " and had 61 staples!).

As I understand it, Dr Mont uses the same approach as the BHR

surgeons - anteriolateral, with minimal muscle cutting.

And I just read a post of a squeaky device; so there goes the

theory....

Let's try this: I take glucosamine - it's supposed to help build

synovial fluid (the joint lubricant).

Anyone out there taking this, or chondroitin; with the " squeaks " ???

[Guest guest]

Hi Deb

As I pointed out in my 1st e-mail I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there about. My

incisions were predictably big - 11 " for the right and 12 " for the left (I am

large boned). I don't know how many staples but they are roughly proportional

to the length of cut.

I may stand corrected but the incision length does help the surgeons team break

and make the joint with most of the muscle intact. With the muscle cut it makes

things easier but this is not usual with BHR..

I was told by the nurses after the first op. that they had seen similar

operations and the leg was first dislocated and rested on top of the other leg

at right angles to it leaving plenty of room to remove the porous surface or

whatever. Men tend to suffer a rather bruised abdominal area during this

process. The general consensus was it would be unlikely (although I suppose

nothing is totally impossible) for any debris to be left - I did ask because I

wished to know these things. All the nurses viewed operations from time to time

and it wasn't a closed to the surgeons team.

It's nice to know that Dr Mont uses a similar approach regarding non cutting of

muscle.

Best regards

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

> Deb

> I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter

in time because the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the

muscle.

Hi Rog! Well, I don't think the length of the incision has much

bearing on the duration of the surgery..... I and many of Dr Mont's

patients have WHOPPERS of scars (mine is 9 " and had 61 staples!).

As I understand it, Dr Mont uses the same approach as the BHR

surgeons - anteriolateral, with minimal muscle cutting.

And I just read a post of a squeaky device; so there goes the

theory....

Let's try this: I take glucosamine - it's supposed to help build

synovial fluid (the joint lubricant).

Anyone out there taking this, or chondroitin; with the " squeaks " ???

[Guest guest]

Hi Deb

As I pointed out in my 1st e-mail I'm 6' 5 " and 300 lbs or there about. My

incisions were predictably big - 11 " for the right and 12 " for the left (I am

large boned). I don't know how many staples but they are roughly proportional

to the length of cut.

I may stand corrected but the incision length does help the surgeons team break

and make the joint with most of the muscle intact. With the muscle cut it makes

things easier but this is not usual with BHR..

I was told by the nurses after the first op. that they had seen similar

operations and the leg was first dislocated and rested on top of the other leg

at right angles to it leaving plenty of room to remove the porous surface or

whatever. Men tend to suffer a rather bruised abdominal area during this

process. The general consensus was it would be unlikely (although I suppose

nothing is totally impossible) for any debris to be left - I did ask because I

wished to know these things. All the nurses viewed operations from time to time

and it wasn't a closed to the surgeons team.

It's nice to know that Dr Mont uses a similar approach regarding non cutting of

muscle.

Best regards

Rog

Re: Squeaks (and speedy surgery?)

> Deb

> I'm Rog with a silent BHR - 2 in fact. The operation is shorter

in time because the cut is bigger giving rise to not cutting the

muscle.

Hi Rog! Well, I don't think the length of the incision has much

bearing on the duration of the surgery..... I and many of Dr Mont's

patients have WHOPPERS of scars (mine is 9 " and had 61 staples!).

As I understand it, Dr Mont uses the same approach as the BHR

surgeons - anteriolateral, with minimal muscle cutting.

And I just read a post of a squeaky device; so there goes the

theory....

Let's try this: I take glucosamine - it's supposed to help build

synovial fluid (the joint lubricant).

Anyone out there taking this, or chondroitin; with the " squeaks " ???