Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

[Guest guest]

Excuse me adding to Jim's excellent e-mail but the greatest plus is that all

resurfacing OS's should tell you that you can lead a more active lifestyle than

you would be able to with most types of THR. Again the only figures I've seen

are to do with the BHR resurfacing in the UK which compare favourably against

THR. Resurfacing has been available in the UK for a long while - the first

operation in the 1930's but only for the past 10 years or so has it had the

technology we see know. There are over 500 members of this site who don't all

contribute to e-mails but the general consensus, no matter what type of

resurfacing, is very good.

Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

> I am considering hip resurfacing using the Conserve Plus

> device. I am Forty-four years old. I understand the

> operation has been available for seven years. How do

> the success rates compare to a total hip replacement

> after the same period of time?

Unfortunately, not much has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

The best summary I've found is the report from the UK's National

Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), available at

http://www.nice.org.uk/article.asp?a=30712. Quoting from that report:

" Surgeons should ensure that patients considering MoM hip resurfacing

arthroplasty understand that less is known about the medium- to

long-term safety and reliability of these devices or the likely

outcome of revision surgery than for conventional total hip

replacements. This additional uncertainty should be weighed against

the potential benefits claimed for MoM devices. "

The results that are available seem to be at least as good as with

THR, and resurfacing has the potential to provide better long term

results than conventional THR. In addition, the bone-conserving nature

of the surgery mitigates ssome of the risk.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the potential benefits against the

unknowns to make your decision.

Good luck!

Jim

[Guest guest]

Excuse me adding to Jim's excellent e-mail but the greatest plus is that all

resurfacing OS's should tell you that you can lead a more active lifestyle than

you would be able to with most types of THR. Again the only figures I've seen

are to do with the BHR resurfacing in the UK which compare favourably against

THR. Resurfacing has been available in the UK for a long while - the first

operation in the 1930's but only for the past 10 years or so has it had the

technology we see know. There are over 500 members of this site who don't all

contribute to e-mails but the general consensus, no matter what type of

resurfacing, is very good.

Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

> I am considering hip resurfacing using the Conserve Plus

> device. I am Forty-four years old. I understand the

> operation has been available for seven years. How do

> the success rates compare to a total hip replacement

> after the same period of time?

Unfortunately, not much has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

The best summary I've found is the report from the UK's National

Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), available at

http://www.nice.org.uk/article.asp?a=30712. Quoting from that report:

" Surgeons should ensure that patients considering MoM hip resurfacing

arthroplasty understand that less is known about the medium- to

long-term safety and reliability of these devices or the likely

outcome of revision surgery than for conventional total hip

replacements. This additional uncertainty should be weighed against

the potential benefits claimed for MoM devices. "

The results that are available seem to be at least as good as with

THR, and resurfacing has the potential to provide better long term

results than conventional THR. In addition, the bone-conserving nature

of the surgery mitigates ssome of the risk.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the potential benefits against the

unknowns to make your decision.

Good luck!

Jim

[Guest guest]

I think it is great that your THR is working well for you. Some of your

points are well taken.

Bottom line: resurfacers have a lot less hardware and are capable of far more

activity. Running is something a THR person could never do without revision

in a few years. A recent post by Dr Dru Dixon demonstrated this when he just

completed the Ironman Triathlon ( 22 mi swim, 112 mile bike ride, 26 mile

marathon run) at 8 months post op. You will never see a THR patient do this.

As Dr Dixon said, " if you just want pain relief get a THR, if want to be

active get resurfacing. "

Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just cannot seem to

grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better than THR.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

I am now five weeks post revision to a MOM THR from a resurfacing. I

consider myself lucky because I received a large ball in my revision. Even

though I had a bad experience with resurfacing I am still one of its strong

proponent. I will likely have my other hip done in a couple of years and I

may consider resurfacing if I can get a reason why my first one failed.

Having said what I said I have different insights into resurfacing now.

First I want to say that my recovery on my revision is so much easiler

than the original resurfacing. My muscles are stronger, less pain, etc. Of

course they only replaced the " femur implant " but that is " the radical " part

of the THR. I am simply not experiencing the pain I expected. For all of the

surfacehippy there is relief in the fact that revision may not be as

concerning as one might imagine even though it is a THR. So far so good.

Now that I have failed my resurfacing and had a revision my search for a

reason has lead me to different questions regarding resurfacing. I have had

many conversations with resurfacing OS and other OS. Are the answers

different after my revision??? or are they the same but I am listening

differently.

Here is what I understand. There are three parts to a successful

resurfacing as regarded by the resurfacing OS. First choosing the right

candidate, second the procedure and third post op acrtivity.

Choosing the right candidate. OS understand that there are three types

of candidates. Those that are acceptable, those that are marginal and those

not acceptable. These three candidates become more definable the more

procedures that are done. By the way I was concerned an acceptable candidate.

The procedure. Even now they are learning things that are neccesary in a

successful procedure. No comment here since this is out of my league.

Post-op. The mechanics of a resurfaced hip allows most activities of a

normal healthy hip. The use and activity level of ones new hip is personal. I

was told by both OS that the recommended activities of a resurfaced hip is

the same as that of a cementless MOM THR with a big ball. In fact prior to my

surgery my OS showed me using the THR how my ROM should be better. My

activity bias prior to my revision had always been greatly in favor

resurfacing. Now it is equal. Resurfacing still may prove to be better in the

long run on greater activity as it is still to early to tell.

I still believe resurfacing is still a better choice in most instances

particularly for young active people. It is nice to be considered young at

53! The bone saving benefit has really becomes relevant to me now that I have

had a revision. Everyone is however not a candidate and for those who are not

there are other good choices for you. Also for all surfacehippies, revision

with a big ball is also a very good option with many of the same benefits

particularly for activity which I hope for all of you it will be many years

away. Be carefull with your new hip. Make it last!!!!

Bob

[Guest guest]

One of the things we have to be careful of in this group is getting into a

kind of " Group Think " where we suspend any kind of critical thought and put

down any possible alternatives to a resurf. There is the risk for anyone

that for some technical reason you will wake up with a MOM THR, personally

think you " still win " if you do. There are a number of people who have been

15+years with an MOM and report that they are unaware it was an artificial

joint even, Sue prime example? It's more useful to listen to problems and

complications, and see how they might avoided, in that vain has anyone has a

bad experience with their resurf experience?

/clive.

Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

I think it is great that your THR is working well for you. Some of your

points are well taken.

Bottom line: resurfacers have a lot less hardware and are capable of far

more

activity. Running is something a THR person could never do without revision

in a few years. A recent post by Dr Dru Dixon demonstrated this when he just

completed the Ironman Triathlon ( 22 mi swim, 112 mile bike ride, 26 mile

marathon run) at 8 months post op. You will never see a THR patient do this.

As Dr Dixon said, " if you just want pain relief get a THR, if want to be

active get resurfacing. "

Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just cannot seem

to

grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better than THR.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

At 04:43 PM 10/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just cannot seem to

>grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better than THR.

Now be fair...beth has pointed a lot of people towards researching

resurfacing. She is thrilled with her THR, and surgeon just as we are with

ours. She chose not to be resurfaced, so she is obviously not convinced

that it is the best for everyone, but I think your blanket statement of her

and her posts is blatantly unfair.

[Guest guest]

Not just that ,

But the more " marginal " you are as a resurf candidate, presumably the more

risk you take on, even if it can be done at all. For bad Dysplaysia (C/DHD)

verses early stage AVN patients, it is a different proposition and different

procedure even. As you mentioned, there is no blanket " simply better, " its

medical condition and personal circumstances driven is it not?

/clive.

Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

At 04:43 PM 10/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just cannot seem

to

>grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better than

THR.

Now be fair...beth has pointed a lot of people towards researching

resurfacing. She is thrilled with her THR, and surgeon just as we are with

ours. She chose not to be resurfaced, so she is obviously not convinced

that it is the best for everyone, but I think your blanket statement of her

and her posts is blatantly unfair.

[Guest guest]

Trudy,

I have had a lot of contact with Totally Hip and . On the whole, she

is very helpful, nice, and knowledgeable but my main beef with her is that

she has made these repeated quotes of Dr Treacy about how he said that his

patients shouldn't be doing impact sports. She took an obscure quote and

constantly harps that theme. I told her that she should visit Treacy's

website (Birmingham) and see that the site promotes the fact that patients

are doing judo, tennis, long distance running, etc.

She did visit the site finally and acknowledged that fact. Two weeks later,

she again misquotes Treacy.

I do not know how she can profess to be an expert on resurfacing when she

doesn't even read Treacy's website, hip-clinic.com, or surfacehippy. She is

always saying that resurfacing has yet to prove that is as good as THR. She

is highly prejudiced towards her c/c THR and constantly uses the " metal ion "

issue to put down metal on metal and resurfacing. She also has said that 1/3

of the femur head is amputated in resurfacing. She also has trouble accepting

that the posterior incision of DeSmet does not cut muscle.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my criticism of her criticisms.

THR is not the Holy Grail or the " Gold standard. " We all know that it has

always had severe limitations compared to resurfacing. Also, THR is

constantly being modified so it's true history is no longer than the 8-9 yr.

studies that exist with RESURFACING. And resurfacing's record is very good

indeed.

THR was and is a great medical advance to help people with their pain but no

one can tell me that resurfacing has yet to prove itself to show it is AS

good as THR.

Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a superior

procedure and device.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Trudy,

I have had a lot of contact with Totally Hip and . On the whole, she

is very helpful, nice, and knowledgeable but my main beef with her is that

she has made these repeated quotes of Dr Treacy about how he said that his

patients shouldn't be doing impact sports. She took an obscure quote and

constantly harps that theme. I told her that she should visit Treacy's

website (Birmingham) and see that the site promotes the fact that patients

are doing judo, tennis, long distance running, etc.

She did visit the site finally and acknowledged that fact. Two weeks later,

she again misquotes Treacy.

I do not know how she can profess to be an expert on resurfacing when she

doesn't even read Treacy's website, hip-clinic.com, or surfacehippy. She is

always saying that resurfacing has yet to prove that is as good as THR. She

is highly prejudiced towards her c/c THR and constantly uses the " metal ion "

issue to put down metal on metal and resurfacing. She also has said that 1/3

of the femur head is amputated in resurfacing. She also has trouble accepting

that the posterior incision of DeSmet does not cut muscle.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my criticism of her criticisms.

THR is not the Holy Grail or the " Gold standard. " We all know that it has

always had severe limitations compared to resurfacing. Also, THR is

constantly being modified so it's true history is no longer than the 8-9 yr.

studies that exist with RESURFACING. And resurfacing's record is very good

indeed.

THR was and is a great medical advance to help people with their pain but no

one can tell me that resurfacing has yet to prove itself to show it is AS

good as THR.

Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a superior

procedure and device.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Deb,

I wrote a long reply to Trudy on this question. I have had a lot of

discussions and debates with . Nothing personal but I disagree with

a lot of her statements on resurfacing. To give one of many examples, early

in the year she made the statement " resurfacing is an option mainly for the

young and men. " I would guess that based on the posts and my experience in

Belgium, that women actually outnumber men in resurfacing.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Saeed,

Don't forget to add " for some people in certain circumstances. "

Why you get beat up is for the blanket statements. You just did it again,

and said: " Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a

superior procedure and device. " We do not all have the same medical

conditions, history, and personal circumstances, or live in the same

countries. For marginal people it may be more risky than a THR, with a less

predictable results/outcome. As Bob mentioned people generally fall into

three categories; " acceptable, " " marginal, " and " unacceptable. " Being on the

other side of the operating table you sound like a parent unwilling to

consider the possibility that their child might be ugly. Trudy has a better

outlook on things. Why not tell us about your previous condition, personal

experiences, and recovery, rather than giving us your " optimistic " opinion.

It contributes more to discuss the " norms " rather than Judo champions and

triathlons. Do Bob and Sue's personal experiences mean nothing? Can you do a

triathlon? My 2cents!

/clive.

Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

Trudy,

I have had a lot of contact with Totally Hip and . On the whole,

she

is very helpful, nice, and knowledgeable but my main beef with her is that

she has made these repeated quotes of Dr Treacy about how he said that his

patients shouldn't be doing impact sports. She took an obscure quote and

constantly harps that theme. I told her that she should visit Treacy's

website (Birmingham) and see that the site promotes the fact that patients

are doing judo, tennis, long distance running, etc.

She did visit the site finally and acknowledged that fact. Two weeks later,

she again misquotes Treacy.

I do not know how she can profess to be an expert on resurfacing when she

doesn't even read Treacy's website, hip-clinic.com, or surfacehippy. She is

always saying that resurfacing has yet to prove that is as good as THR. She

is highly prejudiced towards her c/c THR and constantly uses the " metal ion "

issue to put down metal on metal and resurfacing. She also has said that 1/3

of the femur head is amputated in resurfacing. She also has trouble

accepting

that the posterior incision of DeSmet does not cut muscle.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my criticism of her criticisms.

THR is not the Holy Grail or the " Gold standard. " We all know that it has

always had severe limitations compared to resurfacing. Also, THR is

constantly being modified so it's true history is no longer than the 8-9 yr.

studies that exist with RESURFACING. And resurfacing's record is very good

indeed.

THR was and is a great medical advance to help people with their pain but no

one can tell me that resurfacing has yet to prove itself to show it is AS

good as THR.

Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a superior

procedure and device.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Saeed,

Don't forget to add " for some people in certain circumstances. "

Why you get beat up is for the blanket statements. You just did it again,

and said: " Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a

superior procedure and device. " We do not all have the same medical

conditions, history, and personal circumstances, or live in the same

countries. For marginal people it may be more risky than a THR, with a less

predictable results/outcome. As Bob mentioned people generally fall into

three categories; " acceptable, " " marginal, " and " unacceptable. " Being on the

other side of the operating table you sound like a parent unwilling to

consider the possibility that their child might be ugly. Trudy has a better

outlook on things. Why not tell us about your previous condition, personal

experiences, and recovery, rather than giving us your " optimistic " opinion.

It contributes more to discuss the " norms " rather than Judo champions and

triathlons. Do Bob and Sue's personal experiences mean nothing? Can you do a

triathlon? My 2cents!

/clive.

Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

Trudy,

I have had a lot of contact with Totally Hip and . On the whole,

she

is very helpful, nice, and knowledgeable but my main beef with her is that

she has made these repeated quotes of Dr Treacy about how he said that his

patients shouldn't be doing impact sports. She took an obscure quote and

constantly harps that theme. I told her that she should visit Treacy's

website (Birmingham) and see that the site promotes the fact that patients

are doing judo, tennis, long distance running, etc.

She did visit the site finally and acknowledged that fact. Two weeks later,

she again misquotes Treacy.

I do not know how she can profess to be an expert on resurfacing when she

doesn't even read Treacy's website, hip-clinic.com, or surfacehippy. She is

always saying that resurfacing has yet to prove that is as good as THR. She

is highly prejudiced towards her c/c THR and constantly uses the " metal ion "

issue to put down metal on metal and resurfacing. She also has said that 1/3

of the femur head is amputated in resurfacing. She also has trouble

accepting

that the posterior incision of DeSmet does not cut muscle.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my criticism of her criticisms.

THR is not the Holy Grail or the " Gold standard. " We all know that it has

always had severe limitations compared to resurfacing. Also, THR is

constantly being modified so it's true history is no longer than the 8-9 yr.

studies that exist with RESURFACING. And resurfacing's record is very good

indeed.

THR was and is a great medical advance to help people with their pain but no

one can tell me that resurfacing has yet to prove itself to show it is AS

good as THR.

Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a superior

procedure and device.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Saeed,

Don't forget to add " for some people in certain circumstances. "

Why you get beat up is for the blanket statements. You just did it again,

and said: " Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a

superior procedure and device. " We do not all have the same medical

conditions, history, and personal circumstances, or live in the same

countries. For marginal people it may be more risky than a THR, with a less

predictable results/outcome. As Bob mentioned people generally fall into

three categories; " acceptable, " " marginal, " and " unacceptable. " Being on the

other side of the operating table you sound like a parent unwilling to

consider the possibility that their child might be ugly. Trudy has a better

outlook on things. Why not tell us about your previous condition, personal

experiences, and recovery, rather than giving us your " optimistic " opinion.

It contributes more to discuss the " norms " rather than Judo champions and

triathlons. Do Bob and Sue's personal experiences mean nothing? Can you do a

triathlon? My 2cents!

/clive.

Re: Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

Trudy,

I have had a lot of contact with Totally Hip and . On the whole,

she

is very helpful, nice, and knowledgeable but my main beef with her is that

she has made these repeated quotes of Dr Treacy about how he said that his

patients shouldn't be doing impact sports. She took an obscure quote and

constantly harps that theme. I told her that she should visit Treacy's

website (Birmingham) and see that the site promotes the fact that patients

are doing judo, tennis, long distance running, etc.

She did visit the site finally and acknowledged that fact. Two weeks later,

she again misquotes Treacy.

I do not know how she can profess to be an expert on resurfacing when she

doesn't even read Treacy's website, hip-clinic.com, or surfacehippy. She is

always saying that resurfacing has yet to prove that is as good as THR. She

is highly prejudiced towards her c/c THR and constantly uses the " metal ion "

issue to put down metal on metal and resurfacing. She also has said that 1/3

of the femur head is amputated in resurfacing. She also has trouble

accepting

that the posterior incision of DeSmet does not cut muscle.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my criticism of her criticisms.

THR is not the Holy Grail or the " Gold standard. " We all know that it has

always had severe limitations compared to resurfacing. Also, THR is

constantly being modified so it's true history is no longer than the 8-9 yr.

studies that exist with RESURFACING. And resurfacing's record is very good

indeed.

THR was and is a great medical advance to help people with their pain but no

one can tell me that resurfacing has yet to prove itself to show it is AS

good as THR.

Resurfacing has been around long enough to show that it is a superior

procedure and device.

Saeed

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Clive,

I think some people take things out of context and jump to conclusions. I

have no trouble understanding circumstances that may lead to a conventional

THR or m/m large ball or resurfacing. I know that if I were ineligible for

resurfacing that I would be much happier and pain free with a THR as I

suffered much for 14 years pre op.

I do object to people who make definitive negative statements about

resurfacing without doing their homework. Not once has beth, for

example, mentioned that Surface Hippy is a good resource. In my opinion,

Surface Hippy is the best resource.

Certain people on Totally Hip have make inaccurate statements about

resurfacing that could dissuade an individual from making a choice that could

enhance the quality of their life. These same people are generally well

intentioned but their decided bias comes out clearly. This is fine because

they are entitled to their opinion as you and I am.

My main argument is that I object to the theme that resurfacing has yet to

prove that it is " as good " as the " Gold Standard " of THR. THR has been great

for millions of people but it is not the Holy Grail of standards. It has had

a multitude of problems.

THR has also been constantly modified for the better every few years so it's

" history " isn't any longer than the 8-9 yr. studies that exist for

resurfacing (Birmingham/Treacy-McMinn).

In the end, we are fortunate to have many options for many conditions and

situations. This is a given.

In answer to your question, as an accomplished athlete, I know I am capable

of doing an Ironman in the future, despite having bilateral simultaneous

resurfs.

I know I wouldn't even think of it, had I done a THR.

We're all entitled to our 2 cents as long as it isn't false.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Clive,

I think some people take things out of context and jump to conclusions. I

have no trouble understanding circumstances that may lead to a conventional

THR or m/m large ball or resurfacing. I know that if I were ineligible for

resurfacing that I would be much happier and pain free with a THR as I

suffered much for 14 years pre op.

I do object to people who make definitive negative statements about

resurfacing without doing their homework. Not once has beth, for

example, mentioned that Surface Hippy is a good resource. In my opinion,

Surface Hippy is the best resource.

Certain people on Totally Hip have make inaccurate statements about

resurfacing that could dissuade an individual from making a choice that could

enhance the quality of their life. These same people are generally well

intentioned but their decided bias comes out clearly. This is fine because

they are entitled to their opinion as you and I am.

My main argument is that I object to the theme that resurfacing has yet to

prove that it is " as good " as the " Gold Standard " of THR. THR has been great

for millions of people but it is not the Holy Grail of standards. It has had

a multitude of problems.

THR has also been constantly modified for the better every few years so it's

" history " isn't any longer than the 8-9 yr. studies that exist for

resurfacing (Birmingham/Treacy-McMinn).

In the end, we are fortunate to have many options for many conditions and

situations. This is a given.

In answer to your question, as an accomplished athlete, I know I am capable

of doing an Ironman in the future, despite having bilateral simultaneous

resurfs.

I know I wouldn't even think of it, had I done a THR.

We're all entitled to our 2 cents as long as it isn't false.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Clive,

I think some people take things out of context and jump to conclusions. I

have no trouble understanding circumstances that may lead to a conventional

THR or m/m large ball or resurfacing. I know that if I were ineligible for

resurfacing that I would be much happier and pain free with a THR as I

suffered much for 14 years pre op.

I do object to people who make definitive negative statements about

resurfacing without doing their homework. Not once has beth, for

example, mentioned that Surface Hippy is a good resource. In my opinion,

Surface Hippy is the best resource.

Certain people on Totally Hip have make inaccurate statements about

resurfacing that could dissuade an individual from making a choice that could

enhance the quality of their life. These same people are generally well

intentioned but their decided bias comes out clearly. This is fine because

they are entitled to their opinion as you and I am.

My main argument is that I object to the theme that resurfacing has yet to

prove that it is " as good " as the " Gold Standard " of THR. THR has been great

for millions of people but it is not the Holy Grail of standards. It has had

a multitude of problems.

THR has also been constantly modified for the better every few years so it's

" history " isn't any longer than the 8-9 yr. studies that exist for

resurfacing (Birmingham/Treacy-McMinn).

In the end, we are fortunate to have many options for many conditions and

situations. This is a given.

In answer to your question, as an accomplished athlete, I know I am capable

of doing an Ironman in the future, despite having bilateral simultaneous

resurfs.

I know I wouldn't even think of it, had I done a THR.

We're all entitled to our 2 cents as long as it isn't false.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks for correcting me. I am eager to hear more reports about the large

head metal on metal THR's and how people are faring with running and sports.

DR Dixon did mention that if his resurf should fail, he would continue

running with a large ball THR.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Deb,

I think Isara has corrected your statement that DeSmet does not reconnect the

muscles. I'm sure you were joking when you said that is why his surgeries are

so quick. If you weren't joking then that is not playing fair. With only one

failure ( his #3 with an elderly patient) in over 500 surgeries, you would be

hard pressed to find a better surgeon in the whole wide world.

I do agree that we need to lighten up on being too biased. Generally,

surfacehippy is a much happier group than Totally Hip. I think it is because

we are so happy with our resurfs and we get carried away.

Smiles to you others (beth too).

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Deb,

PS The amount of bone removed from femur depends on amount of damage (i.e.

AVN, cysts, etc) . So it can vary. Generally, it is far less that 1/3 that

beth said is amputated.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Deb,

PS The amount of bone removed from femur depends on amount of damage (i.e.

AVN, cysts, etc) . So it can vary. Generally, it is far less that 1/3 that

beth said is amputated.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Thanks ,

A few people have attacked me without realizing some of the things that

beth has said, because they are not regular readers of Totally Hip.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Thanks ,

A few people have attacked me without realizing some of the things that

beth has said, because they are not regular readers of Totally Hip.

Saeed

[Guest guest]

Amaze_o-You're not the only one to receive the vat of hot oil from Queen

beth. But in search of the Truth, I will continue to challenge her

when I believe she is wrong or posting misleading information. Now that is

only maybe 1-in-25 posts (or even less), so, indeed she generally provides a

good service. She has her own biases (as do I, and I think some of the

resurfed posters), its just that she seems unwilling to admit it at times.

Since I generally keep quiet on that forum unless I want to challenge

someone's facts, she thinks I'm a jerk, but so be it.

My biggest gripe regarding Totally Hip is with a couple people who post

inflammatory and uninformed opinons under different names whenever the

metals risk topic comes up.

-

> Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

>

>

> --I had a long weekend,apparently its been a long one here too...

> in Cal did not chose THR, she talked with Dr Mont who said

> she was too risky or whatever, she wasn't a good candidate. So she

> would have prefered a resurf, but it couldn't be done. She does

> however have a thing when someone " denegrates THR " and states that

> resurf is the panacea, actually, THR is the supposed panacea (not)and

> actually, if resurf is not available for one, THR is.

> I got my butt bit off last spring for that and the teeth marks are

> still there, but Liz can have a bit of chip on the shoulder. I'm

> damned near afraid to post, cause of the reaming I got!

> Cap

>

> -- In surfacehippy@y..., Gronbach <cgronbach@i...> wrote:

> > At 04:43 PM 10/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> >

> > >Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just

> cannot seem to

> > >grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better

> than THR.

> >

> > Now be fair...beth has pointed a lot of people towards

> researching

> > resurfacing. She is thrilled with her THR, and surgeon just as we

> are with

> > ours. She chose not to be resurfaced, so she is obviously not

> convinced

> > that it is the best for everyone, but I think your blanket

> statement of her

> > and her posts is blatantly unfair.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Amaze_o-You're not the only one to receive the vat of hot oil from Queen

beth. But in search of the Truth, I will continue to challenge her

when I believe she is wrong or posting misleading information. Now that is

only maybe 1-in-25 posts (or even less), so, indeed she generally provides a

good service. She has her own biases (as do I, and I think some of the

resurfed posters), its just that she seems unwilling to admit it at times.

Since I generally keep quiet on that forum unless I want to challenge

someone's facts, she thinks I'm a jerk, but so be it.

My biggest gripe regarding Totally Hip is with a couple people who post

inflammatory and uninformed opinons under different names whenever the

metals risk topic comes up.

-

> Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

>

>

> --I had a long weekend,apparently its been a long one here too...

> in Cal did not chose THR, she talked with Dr Mont who said

> she was too risky or whatever, she wasn't a good candidate. So she

> would have prefered a resurf, but it couldn't be done. She does

> however have a thing when someone " denegrates THR " and states that

> resurf is the panacea, actually, THR is the supposed panacea (not)and

> actually, if resurf is not available for one, THR is.

> I got my butt bit off last spring for that and the teeth marks are

> still there, but Liz can have a bit of chip on the shoulder. I'm

> damned near afraid to post, cause of the reaming I got!

> Cap

>

> -- In surfacehippy@y..., Gronbach <cgronbach@i...> wrote:

> > At 04:43 PM 10/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> >

> > >Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just

> cannot seem to

> > >grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better

> than THR.

> >

> > Now be fair...beth has pointed a lot of people towards

> researching

> > resurfacing. She is thrilled with her THR, and surgeon just as we

> are with

> > ours. She chose not to be resurfaced, so she is obviously not

> convinced

> > that it is the best for everyone, but I think your blanket

> statement of her

> > and her posts is blatantly unfair.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Amaze_o-You're not the only one to receive the vat of hot oil from Queen

beth. But in search of the Truth, I will continue to challenge her

when I believe she is wrong or posting misleading information. Now that is

only maybe 1-in-25 posts (or even less), so, indeed she generally provides a

good service. She has her own biases (as do I, and I think some of the

resurfed posters), its just that she seems unwilling to admit it at times.

Since I generally keep quiet on that forum unless I want to challenge

someone's facts, she thinks I'm a jerk, but so be it.

My biggest gripe regarding Totally Hip is with a couple people who post

inflammatory and uninformed opinons under different names whenever the

metals risk topic comes up.

-

> Re: Current sucess rate for resufacing

>

>

> --I had a long weekend,apparently its been a long one here too...

> in Cal did not chose THR, she talked with Dr Mont who said

> she was too risky or whatever, she wasn't a good candidate. So she

> would have prefered a resurf, but it couldn't be done. She does

> however have a thing when someone " denegrates THR " and states that

> resurf is the panacea, actually, THR is the supposed panacea (not)and

> actually, if resurf is not available for one, THR is.

> I got my butt bit off last spring for that and the teeth marks are

> still there, but Liz can have a bit of chip on the shoulder. I'm

> damned near afraid to post, cause of the reaming I got!

> Cap

>

> -- In surfacehippy@y..., Gronbach <cgronbach@i...> wrote:

> > At 04:43 PM 10/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> >

> > >Some of those folks on Totally Hip, like of CA, just

> cannot seem to

> > >grasp this simple concept and admit that there is something better

> than THR.

> >

> > Now be fair...beth has pointed a lot of people towards

> researching

> > resurfacing. She is thrilled with her THR, and surgeon just as we

> are with

> > ours. She chose not to be resurfaced, so she is obviously not

> convinced

> > that it is the best for everyone, but I think your blanket

> statement of her

> > and her posts is blatantly unfair.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>