Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 - I agree with you on all points, but I did have a question/observation: Couldn't the reason for the doubly high cementless revision rate be simply that those patients outlive their original prostheses? Since the cemented ones tend to be placed in very elderly people, isn't it possible that they don't get revised as often simply because the people they're in aren't around to be revised? There may be something I don't know here, but it seems like a plausible explanation. And Sweden! Let us point out that here is yet another country with a single payer, socialized system that surpasses the U.S. in an area of important research and the delivery of quality medical care - not to mention innovation. I find it fascinating that so many countries offering the socialized medicine that is so reviled here in fact provide better care and information to their citizens - both rich and poor - more economically than we can in our so-called " for profit " system. It's not a surprise to me that the richest country in the world can't get it together to have a joint replacement registry: There's little political will here to do anything that doesn't promise a chance to turn a fast buck. sheila - -- In surfacehippy , " Frost " <roger@r...> wrote: > I have just posted the following under 'well well well' for Geoffrey on TH > YOUR QUOTE > I had simply heard that there were restrictions on irradiated materials in Germany and speculated that this might be a reason for differences. > REPLY > I am a Mechanical Design Engineer with past responsibility for products exported to Germany. I have no knowledge of what you state you heard. It just does not tally with ISO (International Standards Organisation) with which the Germans are signed up active members. > > YOUR QUOTE > Your speculations are at least as valid, though I am not sure why our litigious society should be more of a problem for resurfacing technology than for the others, which are hardly perfect. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with http://www.wattslawfirm.com/13_15.5mil.html WATTS & HEARD CLIENTS AWARDED $15.5 MILLION IN FIRST FAULTY HIP-IMPLANT TRIAL > Familiarise yourself with http://www.oxmed.com/docs/datafiles/swedish%20hip%20regist er.html > The bottom of the 4th paragraph reads that revisions in the USA are 2x those of Sweden, UK and Australia. What manufacturer would let their product be used ad hoc with this knowledge. The FDA resurfacing trial is taking place with a select number of OS's - I wonder why! > > YOUR QUOTE > The problem of training is a very valid point. However, it really makes getting the technology difficult here. And, if there is a problem (and there are always problems) finding someone who is reasonably close who can handle these devices is a compelling negative. > REPLY > Please see above. I don't think it needs spelling out. > > YOUR QUOTE > I would like to know where you get your figures and over what period of time those 4455 resurfaces have been done and how old they are. If they were all done 15 years ago, I am impressed (and dubious) if they are all done yesterday the number is hardly impressive at all. I could be mistaken, but Resurfacing has not yet stood the test of time. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/hta/hta-publications/technotes/TN33.pdf > (ALBERTA HERITAGE FOUNDATION DOCUMENT) > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > The figures I mentioned only go back to 1997 but other figures go further back. THR was started by an Englishman some time back. Similarly so was Resurfacing over 65 year ago - I think both have stood the test of time. > I anticipate you will dissect these sites and choose the bits that suit yourself - they are unbiased reports, and as with everything there are pluses and minuses (added together they make an equation). They should stay as they are and the conclusions be held > > YOUR QUOTE > It would be very nice if resurfacing had more of a go here in the states. I do not oppose that and I do believe that people should be free to choose. > REPLY > You are right > > Now I would like to inform of the part Sweden plays in THR. If it wasn't for them we would have little relevant historical data. Whilst everyone else was collating some data no real definitive work was taking place except for guess where - SWEDEN. > There data is published annually in Swedish - they publish an English language version two years later. This can be viewed on > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > It is generally used by OS's the World over - The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: www.aaos.org. refer to it at there annual conventions. > Now if you look at the Swedish site you will find that cemented THR is carried out far more than cementless THR. Also the cementless revision rate is an awful lot higher. I don't mind personally what comments are made on this and other sites but I am occasionally stirred when they defy data that is only too readily available. > I would now like to introduce a paper that is from the American Academy of Orhtopedic Surgeons re Resurfacing http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/anmt2001/sciprog/268.htm. > This is with information that goes back with data for almost 12 years. > > PLEASE NOTE > Most of these sites require a download of Acrobat Reader - the read only version is absolutely free from Adobe on www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. > It is useful in that it enables a text document to be read universally without the need of a specific word processor software package. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 Hi All It's been an interesting experience tuning into this site on behalf of my wife who recently had her BHR resurfacing procedure fail. There is a lot of attitude with some members and for the life of me I cannot understand this THR verses BTR (or equiv) mentality. Do you sit there at the computer throwing toilet rolls or crunching giant bags of popcorn!! Thanks for the individual understanding messages received. And well! statistics and lies, or lies and statistics are the same aren't they!!! Denis Re: Geoffrey/ - I agree with you on all points, but I did have a question/observation: Couldn't the reason for the doubly high cementless revision rate be simply that those patients outlive their original prostheses? Since the cemented ones tend to be placed in very elderly people, isn't it possible that they don't get revised as often simply because the people they're in aren't around to be revised? There may be something I don't know here, but it seems like a plausible explanation. And Sweden! Let us point out that here is yet another country with a single payer, socialized system that surpasses the U.S. in an area of important research and the delivery of quality medical care - not to mention innovation. I find it fascinating that so many countries offering the socialized medicine that is so reviled here in fact provide better care and information to their citizens - both rich and poor - more economically than we can in our so-called " for profit " system. It's not a surprise to me that the richest country in the world can't get it together to have a joint replacement registry: There's little political will here to do anything that doesn't promise a chance to turn a fast buck. sheila - -- In surfacehippy , " Frost " <roger@r...> wrote: > I have just posted the following under 'well well well' for Geoffrey on TH > YOUR QUOTE > I had simply heard that there were restrictions on irradiated materials in Germany and speculated that this might be a reason for differences. > REPLY > I am a Mechanical Design Engineer with past responsibility for products exported to Germany. I have no knowledge of what you state you heard. It just does not tally with ISO (International Standards Organisation) with which the Germans are signed up active members. > > YOUR QUOTE > Your speculations are at least as valid, though I am not sure why our litigious society should be more of a problem for resurfacing technology than for the others, which are hardly perfect. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with http://www.wattslawfirm.com/13_15.5mil.html WATTS & HEARD CLIENTS AWARDED $15.5 MILLION IN FIRST FAULTY HIP-IMPLANT TRIAL > Familiarise yourself with http://www.oxmed.com/docs/datafiles/swedish%20hip%20regist er.html > The bottom of the 4th paragraph reads that revisions in the USA are 2x those of Sweden, UK and Australia. What manufacturer would let their product be used ad hoc with this knowledge. The FDA resurfacing trial is taking place with a select number of OS's - I wonder why! > > YOUR QUOTE > The problem of training is a very valid point. However, it really makes getting the technology difficult here. And, if there is a problem (and there are always problems) finding someone who is reasonably close who can handle these devices is a compelling negative. > REPLY > Please see above. I don't think it needs spelling out. > > YOUR QUOTE > I would like to know where you get your figures and over what period of time those 4455 resurfaces have been done and how old they are. If they were all done 15 years ago, I am impressed (and dubious) if they are all done yesterday the number is hardly impressive at all. I could be mistaken, but Resurfacing has not yet stood the test of time. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/hta/hta-publications/technotes/TN33.pdf > (ALBERTA HERITAGE FOUNDATION DOCUMENT) > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > The figures I mentioned only go back to 1997 but other figures go further back. THR was started by an Englishman some time back. Similarly so was Resurfacing over 65 year ago - I think both have stood the test of time. > I anticipate you will dissect these sites and choose the bits that suit yourself - they are unbiased reports, and as with everything there are pluses and minuses (added together they make an equation). They should stay as they are and the conclusions be held > > YOUR QUOTE > It would be very nice if resurfacing had more of a go here in the states. I do not oppose that and I do believe that people should be free to choose. > REPLY > You are right > > Now I would like to inform of the part Sweden plays in THR. If it wasn't for them we would have little relevant historical data. Whilst everyone else was collating some data no real definitive work was taking place except for guess where - SWEDEN. > There data is published annually in Swedish - they publish an English language version two years later. This can be viewed on > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > It is generally used by OS's the World over - The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: www.aaos.org. refer to it at there annual conventions. > Now if you look at the Swedish site you will find that cemented THR is carried out far more than cementless THR. Also the cementless revision rate is an awful lot higher. I don't mind personally what comments are made on this and other sites but I am occasionally stirred when they defy data that is only too readily available. > I would now like to introduce a paper that is from the American Academy of Orhtopedic Surgeons re Resurfacing http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/anmt2001/sciprog/268.htm. > This is with information that goes back with data for almost 12 years. > > PLEASE NOTE > Most of these sites require a download of Acrobat Reader - the read only version is absolutely free from Adobe on www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. > It is useful in that it enables a text document to be read universally without the need of a specific word processor software package. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 Hi All It's been an interesting experience tuning into this site on behalf of my wife who recently had her BHR resurfacing procedure fail. There is a lot of attitude with some members and for the life of me I cannot understand this THR verses BTR (or equiv) mentality. Do you sit there at the computer throwing toilet rolls or crunching giant bags of popcorn!! Thanks for the individual understanding messages received. And well! statistics and lies, or lies and statistics are the same aren't they!!! Denis Re: Geoffrey/ - I agree with you on all points, but I did have a question/observation: Couldn't the reason for the doubly high cementless revision rate be simply that those patients outlive their original prostheses? Since the cemented ones tend to be placed in very elderly people, isn't it possible that they don't get revised as often simply because the people they're in aren't around to be revised? There may be something I don't know here, but it seems like a plausible explanation. And Sweden! Let us point out that here is yet another country with a single payer, socialized system that surpasses the U.S. in an area of important research and the delivery of quality medical care - not to mention innovation. I find it fascinating that so many countries offering the socialized medicine that is so reviled here in fact provide better care and information to their citizens - both rich and poor - more economically than we can in our so-called " for profit " system. It's not a surprise to me that the richest country in the world can't get it together to have a joint replacement registry: There's little political will here to do anything that doesn't promise a chance to turn a fast buck. sheila - -- In surfacehippy , " Frost " <roger@r...> wrote: > I have just posted the following under 'well well well' for Geoffrey on TH > YOUR QUOTE > I had simply heard that there were restrictions on irradiated materials in Germany and speculated that this might be a reason for differences. > REPLY > I am a Mechanical Design Engineer with past responsibility for products exported to Germany. I have no knowledge of what you state you heard. It just does not tally with ISO (International Standards Organisation) with which the Germans are signed up active members. > > YOUR QUOTE > Your speculations are at least as valid, though I am not sure why our litigious society should be more of a problem for resurfacing technology than for the others, which are hardly perfect. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with http://www.wattslawfirm.com/13_15.5mil.html WATTS & HEARD CLIENTS AWARDED $15.5 MILLION IN FIRST FAULTY HIP-IMPLANT TRIAL > Familiarise yourself with http://www.oxmed.com/docs/datafiles/swedish%20hip%20regist er.html > The bottom of the 4th paragraph reads that revisions in the USA are 2x those of Sweden, UK and Australia. What manufacturer would let their product be used ad hoc with this knowledge. The FDA resurfacing trial is taking place with a select number of OS's - I wonder why! > > YOUR QUOTE > The problem of training is a very valid point. However, it really makes getting the technology difficult here. And, if there is a problem (and there are always problems) finding someone who is reasonably close who can handle these devices is a compelling negative. > REPLY > Please see above. I don't think it needs spelling out. > > YOUR QUOTE > I would like to know where you get your figures and over what period of time those 4455 resurfaces have been done and how old they are. If they were all done 15 years ago, I am impressed (and dubious) if they are all done yesterday the number is hardly impressive at all. I could be mistaken, but Resurfacing has not yet stood the test of time. > REPLY > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/hta/hta-publications/technotes/TN33.pdf > (ALBERTA HERITAGE FOUNDATION DOCUMENT) > Familiarise yourself with > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > The figures I mentioned only go back to 1997 but other figures go further back. THR was started by an Englishman some time back. Similarly so was Resurfacing over 65 year ago - I think both have stood the test of time. > I anticipate you will dissect these sites and choose the bits that suit yourself - they are unbiased reports, and as with everything there are pluses and minuses (added together they make an equation). They should stay as they are and the conclusions be held > > YOUR QUOTE > It would be very nice if resurfacing had more of a go here in the states. I do not oppose that and I do believe that people should be free to choose. > REPLY > You are right > > Now I would like to inform of the part Sweden plays in THR. If it wasn't for them we would have little relevant historical data. Whilst everyone else was collating some data no real definitive work was taking place except for guess where - SWEDEN. > There data is published annually in Swedish - they publish an English language version two years later. This can be viewed on > http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2000-NHR.pdf > It is generally used by OS's the World over - The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: www.aaos.org. refer to it at there annual conventions. > Now if you look at the Swedish site you will find that cemented THR is carried out far more than cementless THR. Also the cementless revision rate is an awful lot higher. I don't mind personally what comments are made on this and other sites but I am occasionally stirred when they defy data that is only too readily available. > I would now like to introduce a paper that is from the American Academy of Orhtopedic Surgeons re Resurfacing http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/anmt2001/sciprog/268.htm. > This is with information that goes back with data for almost 12 years. > > PLEASE NOTE > Most of these sites require a download of Acrobat Reader - the read only version is absolutely free from Adobe on www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. > It is useful in that it enables a text document to be read universally without the need of a specific word processor software package. > > > > > 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.