Re: Hip resurface or THR??

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your kind thoughts - I am still in " recovery mode " ; interesting

info. re: Dr. Mont. When I asked what could've caused my failure problems

in light of the fact that I had no traumatic injury , or even stressful

activities (like jogging, tennis, etc.) I got these responses:

-- from Dr. Mont: " Well, we had a couple of problems in the early group,

and of course you were in the first 50, but we revised the procedure and

I've done 140 of them since then, and they're fine, and you'll be fine. "

-- from Dr. Raglan: " Well, in the ones that had problems, one of them

fell off a horse, one fell down the stairs, another one fell, stuff like

that. "

-- from Mfg. (component maker) : " It must have been something in

there [the hip] that the doctors just didn't see " .

I could not get details on the nature of the revision, or why the proc was

revised if the problems were caused by traumatic injury. And, as I said, I

saw 2 doctors here in Chicago before going to Baltimore (my orthop. & 2nd

opinion) who saw no sign of necrosisor other damage prior to surgery. Dr.

Mont did say he found dysplasia in the left one after he got in there, but

he was still able to get components in. And the right one failed first...

I understand totally that you want this to work - I was in such denial that

anything was wrong with my hips that I truly believed my back was causing

the problems with long-term standing, extended walking, and bending over I

was having before x-rays showed the break.

I waited over a year to have this experimental surgery because of the chance

it would last 30 years instead of 15 like conventional (and becuase I

personally opposed amputation of the joint)... but my doc here stopped just

short of saying I would've been better off with conventional in the first

place, preserved bone or not.

Best of luck to you, W. Bolduc

>

>Reply-To: surfacehippy

>To: surfacehippy

>Subject: Re: Hip resurface or THR??

>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:06:21 -0000

>

>:

>

>I am sorry to hear about your experience. I hope all is going well

>now. Dr. Mont mentioned to me that he had several patients that had

>experienced failures a few years back and, as a result, he was being

>more conservative about recommending resurfacing when the bone stock

>was in bad shape. That was his reason for saying I had about a 50:50

>shot - he said he can't be sure until he can examine the condition of

>the bone.

>

>Thanks for sharing your experience with all of us! And best of luck

>to you.

>

>

>

>

> > > > I have now seen two seperate doctors who tell me that hip

> > > > resurfacing is unproven and too risky to consider. I am 38 years

> > > > old football player build 270lbs 6'4 " . Fairly active lifestyle with

> > > > two kids 1 and 3. Can anyone give me an opinion on what option I

> > > > should consider. I have been have hip problems for ten years, no to

> > > > the point where I can't bicycle without alot of pain. If I am on my

> > > > feet for more than twenty minutes, pain starts in. How long should

> > > > I wait? I have issues with my right hip but a few years down the

> > > > road I will need to look at my left hip. The Doctor says I was born

> > > > with my heads not all the way into my sockets. Any help would be

> > > > appreciated.

> > > > Jeff

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your kind thoughts - I am still in " recovery mode " ; interesting

info. re: Dr. Mont. When I asked what could've caused my failure problems

in light of the fact that I had no traumatic injury , or even stressful

activities (like jogging, tennis, etc.) I got these responses:

-- from Dr. Mont: " Well, we had a couple of problems in the early group,

and of course you were in the first 50, but we revised the procedure and

I've done 140 of them since then, and they're fine, and you'll be fine. "

-- from Dr. Raglan: " Well, in the ones that had problems, one of them

fell off a horse, one fell down the stairs, another one fell, stuff like

that. "

-- from Mfg. (component maker) : " It must have been something in

there [the hip] that the doctors just didn't see " .

I could not get details on the nature of the revision, or why the proc was

revised if the problems were caused by traumatic injury. And, as I said, I

saw 2 doctors here in Chicago before going to Baltimore (my orthop. & 2nd

opinion) who saw no sign of necrosisor other damage prior to surgery. Dr.

Mont did say he found dysplasia in the left one after he got in there, but

he was still able to get components in. And the right one failed first...

I understand totally that you want this to work - I was in such denial that

anything was wrong with my hips that I truly believed my back was causing

the problems with long-term standing, extended walking, and bending over I

was having before x-rays showed the break.

I waited over a year to have this experimental surgery because of the chance

it would last 30 years instead of 15 like conventional (and becuase I

personally opposed amputation of the joint)... but my doc here stopped just

short of saying I would've been better off with conventional in the first

place, preserved bone or not.

Best of luck to you, W. Bolduc

>

>Reply-To: surfacehippy

>To: surfacehippy

>Subject: Re: Hip resurface or THR??

>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:06:21 -0000

>

>:

>

>I am sorry to hear about your experience. I hope all is going well

>now. Dr. Mont mentioned to me that he had several patients that had

>experienced failures a few years back and, as a result, he was being

>more conservative about recommending resurfacing when the bone stock

>was in bad shape. That was his reason for saying I had about a 50:50

>shot - he said he can't be sure until he can examine the condition of

>the bone.

>

>Thanks for sharing your experience with all of us! And best of luck

>to you.

>

>

>

>

> > > > I have now seen two seperate doctors who tell me that hip

> > > > resurfacing is unproven and too risky to consider. I am 38 years

> > > > old football player build 270lbs 6'4 " . Fairly active lifestyle with

> > > > two kids 1 and 3. Can anyone give me an opinion on what option I

> > > > should consider. I have been have hip problems for ten years, no to

> > > > the point where I can't bicycle without alot of pain. If I am on my

> > > > feet for more than twenty minutes, pain starts in. How long should

> > > > I wait? I have issues with my right hip but a few years down the

> > > > road I will need to look at my left hip. The Doctor says I was born

> > > > with my heads not all the way into my sockets. Any help would be

> > > > appreciated.

> > > > Jeff

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your kind thoughts - I am still in " recovery mode " ; interesting

info. re: Dr. Mont. When I asked what could've caused my failure problems

in light of the fact that I had no traumatic injury , or even stressful

activities (like jogging, tennis, etc.) I got these responses:

-- from Dr. Mont: " Well, we had a couple of problems in the early group,

and of course you were in the first 50, but we revised the procedure and

I've done 140 of them since then, and they're fine, and you'll be fine. "

-- from Dr. Raglan: " Well, in the ones that had problems, one of them

fell off a horse, one fell down the stairs, another one fell, stuff like

that. "

-- from Mfg. (component maker) : " It must have been something in

there [the hip] that the doctors just didn't see " .

I could not get details on the nature of the revision, or why the proc was

revised if the problems were caused by traumatic injury. And, as I said, I

saw 2 doctors here in Chicago before going to Baltimore (my orthop. & 2nd

opinion) who saw no sign of necrosisor other damage prior to surgery. Dr.

Mont did say he found dysplasia in the left one after he got in there, but

he was still able to get components in. And the right one failed first...

I understand totally that you want this to work - I was in such denial that

anything was wrong with my hips that I truly believed my back was causing

the problems with long-term standing, extended walking, and bending over I

was having before x-rays showed the break.

I waited over a year to have this experimental surgery because of the chance

it would last 30 years instead of 15 like conventional (and becuase I

personally opposed amputation of the joint)... but my doc here stopped just

short of saying I would've been better off with conventional in the first

place, preserved bone or not.

Best of luck to you, W. Bolduc

>

>Reply-To: surfacehippy

>To: surfacehippy

>Subject: Re: Hip resurface or THR??

>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:06:21 -0000

>

>:

>

>I am sorry to hear about your experience. I hope all is going well

>now. Dr. Mont mentioned to me that he had several patients that had

>experienced failures a few years back and, as a result, he was being

>more conservative about recommending resurfacing when the bone stock

>was in bad shape. That was his reason for saying I had about a 50:50

>shot - he said he can't be sure until he can examine the condition of

>the bone.

>

>Thanks for sharing your experience with all of us! And best of luck

>to you.

>

>

>

>

> > > > I have now seen two seperate doctors who tell me that hip

> > > > resurfacing is unproven and too risky to consider. I am 38 years

> > > > old football player build 270lbs 6'4 " . Fairly active lifestyle with

> > > > two kids 1 and 3. Can anyone give me an opinion on what option I

> > > > should consider. I have been have hip problems for ten years, no to

> > > > the point where I can't bicycle without alot of pain. If I am on my

> > > > feet for more than twenty minutes, pain starts in. How long should

> > > > I wait? I have issues with my right hip but a few years down the

> > > > road I will need to look at my left hip. The Doctor says I was born

> > > > with my heads not all the way into my sockets. Any help would be

> > > > appreciated.

> > > > Jeff

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >