Re: Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

[Guest guest]

Hi Danz,

your statement below is only true when comparing MoM resurfacing with

MoM Big Ball THR (based on resurfacing components: cup + head placed on

a classical THR stem system). Normally used MoM THR with 22 / 26 mm

head has the same ROM restrictions (90 degress etc.) and risks for

dislocation.

To my knowledge all three manifacturers has an option to revise the

head from resurface type to stem-based type. As far as I know, only BHR

has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic type).

Dr de Smet even used this combination to revise a classical THR (modular

BHR head placed on top of a Medical revision stem system - no ROM

restrictions, no dislocation - see x-rays on hip-clinic.com).

Good alternative to MoM THR is the CoC THR (ceramic). Some believe they

are even better (lesser wear and biocompatible to human body). See

www.activejoints.com (FDA approved). But CoC is not available as

resurfacing device - you can't make a thin cup out of ceramic, and with

a thick cup, it is not bone conservative.

Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or THR

prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation concerns are

all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision of a

resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral component,

assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually readily

available?

Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S. which

include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be anytime

soon?

Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of these

'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

danz

[Guest guest]

Hi Danz,

your statement below is only true when comparing MoM resurfacing with

MoM Big Ball THR (based on resurfacing components: cup + head placed on

a classical THR stem system). Normally used MoM THR with 22 / 26 mm

head has the same ROM restrictions (90 degress etc.) and risks for

dislocation.

To my knowledge all three manifacturers has an option to revise the

head from resurface type to stem-based type. As far as I know, only BHR

has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic type).

Dr de Smet even used this combination to revise a classical THR (modular

BHR head placed on top of a Medical revision stem system - no ROM

restrictions, no dislocation - see x-rays on hip-clinic.com).

Good alternative to MoM THR is the CoC THR (ceramic). Some believe they

are even better (lesser wear and biocompatible to human body). See

www.activejoints.com (FDA approved). But CoC is not available as

resurfacing device - you can't make a thin cup out of ceramic, and with

a thick cup, it is not bone conservative.

Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or THR

prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation concerns are

all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision of a

resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral component,

assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually readily

available?

Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S. which

include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be anytime

soon?

Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of these

'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

danz

[Guest guest]

Hi Danz,

your statement below is only true when comparing MoM resurfacing with

MoM Big Ball THR (based on resurfacing components: cup + head placed on

a classical THR stem system). Normally used MoM THR with 22 / 26 mm

head has the same ROM restrictions (90 degress etc.) and risks for

dislocation.

To my knowledge all three manifacturers has an option to revise the

head from resurface type to stem-based type. As far as I know, only BHR

has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic type).

Dr de Smet even used this combination to revise a classical THR (modular

BHR head placed on top of a Medical revision stem system - no ROM

restrictions, no dislocation - see x-rays on hip-clinic.com).

Good alternative to MoM THR is the CoC THR (ceramic). Some believe they

are even better (lesser wear and biocompatible to human body). See

www.activejoints.com (FDA approved). But CoC is not available as

resurfacing device - you can't make a thin cup out of ceramic, and with

a thick cup, it is not bone conservative.

Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or THR

prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation concerns are

all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision of a

resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral component,

assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually readily

available?

Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S. which

include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be anytime

soon?

Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of these

'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

danz

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, only BHR

> has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic

type).

,

A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

any details about what the cup is like.

Trudy

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, only BHR

> has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic

type).

,

A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

any details about what the cup is like.

Trudy

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, only BHR

> has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic

type).

,

A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

any details about what the cup is like.

Trudy

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that all 3 maufacturers' parts are

interchangeable amongst themselves. In other words, if my C+ hip

fails, I can get a THR component from that will fit my

acetabular part.

Deb C+ 5-2-02

> For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or

THR

> prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation

concerns are

> all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

>

> Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision

of a

> resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral

component,

> assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually

readily

> available?

>

> Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S.

which

> include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be

anytime

> soon?

>

> Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of

these

> 'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

>

> danz

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that all 3 maufacturers' parts are

interchangeable amongst themselves. In other words, if my C+ hip

fails, I can get a THR component from that will fit my

acetabular part.

Deb C+ 5-2-02

> For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or

THR

> prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation

concerns are

> all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

>

> Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision

of a

> resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral

component,

> assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually

readily

> available?

>

> Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S.

which

> include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be

anytime

> soon?

>

> Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of

these

> 'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

>

> danz

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that all 3 maufacturers' parts are

interchangeable amongst themselves. In other words, if my C+ hip

fails, I can get a THR component from that will fit my

acetabular part.

Deb C+ 5-2-02

> For my purposes, I believe Metal on Metal in either resurfacing or

THR

> prostheses is good. Wear, ROM limitations, and dislocation

concerns are

> all (potentially) reduced, I believe. Is this a fair assessment?

>

> Apparently the BHR system offers both options, meaning a revision

of a

> resurfacing may be possible by replacing only the femoral

component,

> assuming it's the one that fails. Is a BHR THR option actually

readily

> available?

>

> Are there any MoM alternatives currently available in the U.S.

which

> include both the resurfacing and THR options? Will there be

anytime

> soon?

>

> Does anyone have experience or know someone with experience of

these

> 'better mousetraps'? Any input greatfully received. TIA...

>

> danz

[Guest guest]

Hi Trudy,

For revision of the cup, you need a replacement with a larger

outer diameter (same inner diameter), because it are cementless

press-fit type components. Perhaps Corin/C2K offers this

like BHR does, or they may even used a cement fixation - would be

interesting to find out...

However, in more complicated revisions you need additional

fixation possiblities, like the two additional screws the dysplastic

BHR cup offers. I've no doubt that in time both Corin and WMT will

come up with something simular - but for now, my advise, don't screw

up your cups...

Re: Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

As far as I know, only BHR

> has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic

type).

,

A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

any details about what the cup is like.

Trudy

[Guest guest]

Hi Trudy,

For revision of the cup, you need a replacement with a larger

outer diameter (same inner diameter), because it are cementless

press-fit type components. Perhaps Corin/C2K offers this

like BHR does, or they may even used a cement fixation - would be

interesting to find out...

However, in more complicated revisions you need additional

fixation possiblities, like the two additional screws the dysplastic

BHR cup offers. I've no doubt that in time both Corin and WMT will

come up with something simular - but for now, my advise, don't screw

up your cups...

Re: Metal on Metal resurfacing and THR...

As far as I know, only BHR

> has the option to revise the cup (from normal type to dysplastic

type).

,

A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

any details about what the cup is like.

Trudy

[Guest guest]

> A young girl had an acetabular revision with a Corin implant last

> summer. She still has the Cormet femoral component. I don't know

> any details about what the cup is like.

Right. My understanding was that her surgeon get a special FDA

" compassionate use " exception to import Corin's equivalent of the

BHR's dysplasia cup after her original cup failed. Corin probably

sells that device overseas. They are probably waiting for FDA approval

of resurfacing before applying to market the dysplasia device in the

US.

My wife ended up with a MOM THR instead of a C+ from Dr. Mont because

the C+ doesn't have a cup with screws available.

Jim