Re: Thigh Pain - Jack Nicklaus

[Guest guest]

>

after finding this out recently , i've often wondered

how someone so famous with unlimited resources would not

have considered or known about the " resurface " option .

Resufacing was a common operation , at least in Europe,

four years ago when Jack had his THR.

He would appear to be an ideal candidate for resurface

Maybe it illustrates that people who choose a THR

aren't necessarily uninformed and ill advised

just wondering .

Goldberg C+ 1/28/03

The following site is by the OS who did Jack Nicklaus THR:

>

> http://www.wvclinic.com/news/Autumn%202003/Hip%20Replacement.asp

>

> He explains:

> Uncemented prostheses were developed about 20 years ago to try to

avoid the possibility of loosening parts and the breaking off of

cement particles, which sometimes happen in the cemented replacement.

Younger, more active people might choose uncemented. However, people

who choose uncemented prosthesis have a longer recovery period than

cemented, because it takes a long time for the natural bone to grow

and attach to the prosthesis. Activities must be limited for up to 3

months to protect the hip joint. The process of natural bone growth

also can cause thigh pain for several months after the surgery.

>

> Rog BHR both hips 2001 Treacy

>

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, but as I read the article it appears to me anyway that THR is

the only option actually discussed in it. Resurf devices in common use

today use a cemented femoral component. A fair number of the myriad of

present THR devices don't. The article seems to me to be contrasting

cemented v. uncemented THR. Three years ago I was told of resurf in

passing but my OS emphasized that it was untried, experimental and not

recommended. He then went on to explain that I was really too young

for THR at 54 but that if I insisted, he would do THR's 6-8 weeks

apart. Bilat he said was out of the question. He suggested instead

that I mediate pain with NSAID's until I was no longer able to

tolerate it, and then go to THR. My advisor had been recently trained

at Harvard/Mass General and so I assumed and no doubt was getting

current as of 2001 OS standard of care guidelines. It's possible that

the resurf option was either not raised with Mr Nicklaus or was

downplayed as still experimental. Or not. I really don't know for

sure. I know I've certainly been there and I don't know a thing about

golf! What do you think, Rog?

Regards,

SV

> >

> after finding this out recently , i've often wondered

> how someone so famous with unlimited resources would not

> have considered or known about the " resurface " option .

>

> Resufacing was a common operation , at least in Europe,

> four years ago when Jack had his THR.

>

> He would appear to be an ideal candidate for resurface

>

> Maybe it illustrates that people who choose a THR

> aren't necessarily uninformed and ill advised

>

> just wondering .

>

>

> Goldberg C+ 1/28/03

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> The following site is by the OS who did Jack Nicklaus THR:

> >

> > http://www.wvclinic.com/news/Autumn%202003/Hip%20Replacement.asp

> >

> > He explains:

> > Uncemented prostheses were developed about 20 years ago to try to

> avoid the possibility of loosening parts and the breaking off of

> cement particles, which sometimes happen in the cemented replacement.

> Younger, more active people might choose uncemented. However, people

> who choose uncemented prosthesis have a longer recovery period than

> cemented, because it takes a long time for the natural bone to grow

> and attach to the prosthesis. Activities must be limited for up to 3

> months to protect the hip joint. The process of natural bone growth

> also can cause thigh pain for several months after the surgery.

> >

> > Rog BHR both hips 2001 Treacy

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Steve,

The fact that Jack Nicklaus went down the route of THR has been raised here

a couple of years ago. Considering he was in every British Open going I

guess he must have heard of resurfacing as some of our sportsmen were having

the operation. I can only suggest he was talked into THR as the USA trials

weren't on. As a golfing nut I know that he and Arnold Palmer were the

greatest guys one could ever hope to meet. I met Arnold and unfortunately

he couldn't understand a word I said :-) He admitted it. Both of them were

and are well received here in the UK and never heard anyone with a bad word

against them.

The reason I posted the article was really a leader into hip pain being

mentioned. I am making assumptions but could these be the muscle pains

people have referred to and surely they apply to cemented hips to a smaller

degree. I know it isn't everybody who suffers this muscular? pain but then

again everyone's pain threshold is different.

Rog BHR x 2 Treacy 2001

Re: Thigh Pain - Jack Nicklaus

> Perhaps, but as I read the article it appears to me anyway that THR is

> the only option actually discussed in it. Resurf devices in common use

> today use a cemented femoral component. A fair number of the myriad of

> present THR devices don't. The article seems to me to be contrasting

> cemented v. uncemented THR. Three years ago I was told of resurf in

> passing but my OS emphasized that it was untried, experimental and not

> recommended. He then went on to explain that I was really too young

> for THR at 54 but that if I insisted, he would do THR's 6-8 weeks

> apart. Bilat he said was out of the question. He suggested instead

> that I mediate pain with NSAID's until I was no longer able to

> tolerate it, and then go to THR. My advisor had been recently trained

> at Harvard/Mass General and so I assumed and no doubt was getting

> current as of 2001 OS standard of care guidelines. It's possible that

> the resurf option was either not raised with Mr Nicklaus or was

> downplayed as still experimental. Or not. I really don't know for

> sure. I know I've certainly been there and I don't know a thing about

> golf! What do you think, Rog?

> Regards,

> SV

>

>

> > >

> > after finding this out recently , i've often wondered

> > how someone so famous with unlimited resources would not

> > have considered or known about the " resurface " option .

> >

> > Resufacing was a common operation , at least in Europe,

> > four years ago when Jack had his THR.

> >

> > He would appear to be an ideal candidate for resurface

> >

> > Maybe it illustrates that people who choose a THR

> > aren't necessarily uninformed and ill advised

> >

> > just wondering .

> >

> >

> > Goldberg C+ 1/28/03

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The following site is by the OS who did Jack Nicklaus THR:

> > >

> > > http://www.wvclinic.com/news/Autumn%202003/Hip%20Replacement.asp

> > >

> > > He explains:

> > > Uncemented prostheses were developed about 20 years ago to try to

> > avoid the possibility of loosening parts and the breaking off of

> > cement particles, which sometimes happen in the cemented replacement.

> > Younger, more active people might choose uncemented. However, people

> > who choose uncemented prosthesis have a longer recovery period than

> > cemented, because it takes a long time for the natural bone to grow

> > and attach to the prosthesis. Activities must be limited for up to 3

> > months to protect the hip joint. The process of natural bone growth

> > also can cause thigh pain for several months after the surgery.

> > >

> > > Rog BHR both hips 2001 Treacy

> > >

> > >