Re: a SIMPLE question

[Guest guest]

> and i need a SIMPLE answer. i am so confused anymore and i need

> surgery fast, at this point..and i am open to going ANY way, but i

> prefer it to be the best.

>

> my question IS...WHY IS THE BHR resurfacing device a better device

> than those manufactured here?

There isn't a " simple " answer to this. At this point, there's no

clinical evidence proving that any one of these devices is better

than the others. The BHR has the longest track record.

The differences between the devices are relatively minor and pretty

technical. The basic design of all of them is the same. Since there

isn't any long-term comparison data yet, nobody is going to be able to

show you conclusive evidence of superiority. You'll have to wait a

couple of decades for that.

Steve (bilateral wanna-be)

[Guest guest]

,

I think the surgeon is much more important then the device when making this

kind of choice. I know of no evidence that any of the resurfacing devices

have any significant advantages in design or materials. If you find a good

surgeon, you'll do fine.

Mike Trautman

C2K, Kennedy, Sep 03

[Guest guest]

I don't know that the BHR device is better than the ones available here. The

problem with the ones available here is that they're still investigational in

the United States, and many insurance companies refuse to cover them.

P.

a SIMPLE question

and i need a SIMPLE answer. i am so confused anymore and i need

surgery fast, at this point..and i am open to going ANY way, but i

prefer it to be the best.

my question IS...WHY IS THE BHR resurfacing device a better device

than those manufactured here?

rememeber....i need SIMPLE answers.

thanks.

needing a left and maybe a right

[Guest guest]

I have 2 BHR's. I don't think their better or worse than Cormet 2000 or the

Conserve +. It's just a matter of making sure you get one of them if that is

what you want. The main reason BHR is bandied about so much is that 3 of the

most experienced OS's use it. There are other experienced OS's using all 3

devices. One reason that the numbers are higher is that BHR generally use a

longer incision which enables a much shorter operation time (30 minutes to one

hour is bandied about on this site) - so an OS can do more of them.

At the end of the day it comes down to (not in any order)

i) How quick can you get one

ii) Cost - how much will it cost you

iii) Convenience - If you do or don't like travelling

iv) Finding an OS who will deliver - you don't want to wake with a different

device.

Rog

a SIMPLE question

and i need a SIMPLE answer. i am so confused anymore and i need

surgery fast, at this point..and i am open to going ANY way, but i

prefer it to be the best.

my question IS...WHY IS THE BHR resurfacing device a better device

than those manufactured here?

rememeber....i need SIMPLE answers.

thanks.

needing a left and maybe a right

[Guest guest]

Here is the technical mumbo-jumbo straight from the midmedtec (maker

of the BHR) website (http://www.midmedtec.co.uk/hip_resurfacing.htm):

" For those patients with defects of the acetabulum the Dysplasia Cup*

offers a uniquely elegant solution. These are available in 6 sizes

from 46mm to 66mm in 4mm increments.

The cup has 2 superolateral threaded lugs which allow for a unique

screw fixation, ensuring solid cup fixation in the deficient

acetabulum. Structural bone grafting is not required. Instead the

superolateral defect is filled with morcellised autograft which

rapidly incorporates. "

I believe this option is unique to the BHR.

> > and i need a SIMPLE answer. i am so confused anymore and i need

> > surgery fast, at this point..and i am open to going ANY way, but i

> > prefer it to be the best.

> >

> > my question IS...WHY IS THE BHR resurfacing device a better device

> > than those manufactured here?

> >

> > rememeber....i need SIMPLE answers.

> >

> > thanks.

> > needing a left and maybe a right

[Guest guest]

hi mary-

i agree with what everyone is saying in response to your question.

however, there is one design difference/consideration to be aware

of. the bhr makes an optional " dysplasia cup " , this is the part that

goes in your pelvis (or acetablum). some people have shallow or

deformed hip sockets, and thus if my surgeon did not feel

confident that the standard acetabular cup of a hip resurfacing

device would remain fixated in place, the surgeon might elect to

implant a different device that has a cup that can be fixed with

screws into the pelvis. this is what the BHR dysplasia cup does.

to my knowledge the other two established manufacturers don't

provide this option.

keep in mind that everyone's circumstances are different

and that the best solution for one person is not necessarily

the best solution for someone else.

here is how i made my decision for me, i hope it helps :

i was diagnosed with mild dysplasia in my arthritic hip, and wanted

the extra assurance that i would wake up from surgery with a

resurfacing (as opposed to a THR) in case my hip seemed too

challenging when the doctor had me opened up on the table.

if my insurance would have covered my hip resurfacing, then i would

have sent my x-rays to the surgeon here in the usa that i would have

gone to and asked him to look specifically at the dysplasia and give

me assurance that he was confident that he would be able to implant

the standard wright or corin resurfacing device. if there was any doubt,

then i would have still gone to europe to get a bhr even if i had to pay

for it myself.

i would have been just as pleased to recieve either of the three established

manufacturer's devices. i just wanted to have the dysplasia cup option,

and that got me looking at a bhr.

as it turned out, my insurance would not cover any resurfacing, so at that

point, i could pick any doctor and any device i wanted, and i chose a bhr.

this meant that i needed to go outside of the usa to get it because it is not

under

clinical trials here, so it is not available here. this led me to look into dr.

mcminn,

dr. treacy & dr. de smet based on all the feedback from others on this board.

i sent x-rays to dr. treacy and dr. de smet, they both said that they thought

the mild

dysplasia i had would not be a problem, but that they would have the option to

use it.

i ended up going with dr. de smet because he was so responsive and answered all

of my questions promptly and directly, and that impressed me. the other thing

that

seemed like a nice bonus to be was the amount of hip resurfacings that these

surgeons had perfomed. their experience level only added to my comfort level,

(although i'm sure that the surgeons here carrying out the trials are

cream-of-the-crop).

as it turned out i recieved a standard bhr cup and i'm walking farther and

better now

at 7 weeks post-op than i have in over 3-4 years. i'm sure i would have the same

results

with one of the other two....but i did get to go to europe.......and it cost me

le$$.

good luck,

jeff

new left hip

11-19-03

Re: a SIMPLE question

,

I think the surgeon is much more important then the device when making this

kind of choice. I know of no evidence that any of the resurfacing devices

have any significant advantages in design or materials. If you find a good

surgeon, you'll do fine.

Mike Trautman

C2K, Kennedy, Sep 03

------------------------------------------------------------------------------