Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Hello Everyone, Thank you to those who responded to my last post. I really appreciated it. Now in one month I have gone from having no contact with an OS to being booked in to have a BHR on the 10th June. My surgeon, a protege of McMinn and Tracey, declares me to have a very deformed femoral head, one of the contra-indicators for resurfacing according to DeSmet in Peggy's book. (Amazing what you can find out in a month). However he said that he considered it 70 -80% likely that he would still be able to do the BHR and shape the femur, after seeing the MRI scan. The only doubt was on bone quality. He was most insistent though that ceramic on ceramic THR was the alternative route of choice...and referred me to Jack Nicklaus' smiling face on the Stryker web site for information! He didn't actually say which hip he would use, so I need to check that out with him. He was quite insistent that this would be better than metal on metal. Has anybody any idea why this is, and what the background to this is please. Is ceramic on ceramic, relatively new technology....I understand all the pros and cons of THR, but I am really just interested in what folks know about this technology, or where I could find out more because the Stryker site is not really very forthcoming. Thank you again with best wishes, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , I'm not sure about the history of the ceramic THR except for the fact that they were taken off the market at one point and brought back in 2003. I would question how much testing has been done with the new improved materials (possibly much less than with resurfacing). My OS didn't recommend the ceramic THR for me as he was afraid of it coming out of the socket partially and shattering against the edge of the cup if I landed with it in that position while playing volleyball. Additionally the size of the ceramic device is much smaller than that used for resurfacing 28mm vs 52mm (for me). This would be more prone to dislocation, especially for someone that is active. Ask your OS about restrictions of the ceramic THR vs. the large diameter M-o-M THR and get a second opinion from an OS that uses the large diameter M-o-M THR. This is very important if you are not be able to be resurfaced! Best of luck, Fred Dr. Gross, C2K 1/21/04 > Hello Everyone, > > Thank you to those who responded to my last post. I really > appreciated it. Now in one month I have gone from having no contact > with an OS to being booked in to have a BHR on the 10th June. My > surgeon, a protege of McMinn and Tracey, declares me to have a very > deformed femoral head, one of the contra-indicators for resurfacing > according to DeSmet in Peggy's book. (Amazing what you can find > out in a month). However he said that he considered it 70 -80% > likely that he would still be able to do the BHR and shape the > femur, after seeing the MRI scan. The only doubt was on bone quality. > > He was most insistent though that ceramic on ceramic THR was the > alternative route of choice...and referred me to Jack Nicklaus' > smiling face on the Stryker web site for information! He didn't > actually say which hip he would use, so I need to check that out > with him. He was quite insistent that this would be better than > metal on metal. Has anybody any idea why this is, and what the > background to this is please. Is ceramic on ceramic, relatively new > technology....I understand all the pros and cons of THR, but I am > really just interested in what folks know about this technology, or > where I could find out more because the Stryker site is not really > very forthcoming. > > Thank you again > > with best wishes, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 A few years ago there was a manufacturer who was making ceramic parts that were not up to specification - I seem to recall it was a french firm - there were some problems with the devices shattering. The parts were supplied to several THR manufacturers, I believe Biomet was one. I have heard that the manufacturing problems have been resolved. RC2K Dr. Gross 3/24/04 > > Hello Everyone, > > > > Thank you to those who responded to my last post. I really > > appreciated it. Now in one month I have gone from having no > contact > > with an OS to being booked in to have a BHR on the 10th June. My > > surgeon, a protege of McMinn and Tracey, declares me to have a > very > > deformed femoral head, one of the contra-indicators for > resurfacing > > according to DeSmet in Peggy's book. (Amazing what you can find > > out in a month). However he said that he considered it 70 -80% > > likely that he would still be able to do the BHR and shape the > > femur, after seeing the MRI scan. The only doubt was on bone > quality. > > > > He was most insistent though that ceramic on ceramic THR was the > > alternative route of choice...and referred me to Jack Nicklaus' > > smiling face on the Stryker web site for information! He didn't > > actually say which hip he would use, so I need to check that out > > with him. He was quite insistent that this would be better than > > metal on metal. Has anybody any idea why this is, and what the > > background to this is please. Is ceramic on ceramic, relatively > new > > technology....I understand all the pros and cons of THR, but I am > > really just interested in what folks know about this technology, > or > > where I could find out more because the Stryker site is not really > > very forthcoming. > > > > Thank you again > > > > with best wishes, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 A few years ago there was a manufacturer who was making ceramic parts that were not up to specification - I seem to recall it was a french firm - there were some problems with the devices shattering. The parts were supplied to several THR manufacturers, I believe Biomet was one. I have heard that the manufacturing problems have been resolved. RC2K Dr. Gross 3/24/04 > > Hello Everyone, > > > > Thank you to those who responded to my last post. I really > > appreciated it. Now in one month I have gone from having no > contact > > with an OS to being booked in to have a BHR on the 10th June. My > > surgeon, a protege of McMinn and Tracey, declares me to have a > very > > deformed femoral head, one of the contra-indicators for > resurfacing > > according to DeSmet in Peggy's book. (Amazing what you can find > > out in a month). However he said that he considered it 70 -80% > > likely that he would still be able to do the BHR and shape the > > femur, after seeing the MRI scan. The only doubt was on bone > quality. > > > > He was most insistent though that ceramic on ceramic THR was the > > alternative route of choice...and referred me to Jack Nicklaus' > > smiling face on the Stryker web site for information! He didn't > > actually say which hip he would use, so I need to check that out > > with him. He was quite insistent that this would be better than > > metal on metal. Has anybody any idea why this is, and what the > > background to this is please. Is ceramic on ceramic, relatively > new > > technology....I understand all the pros and cons of THR, but I am > > really just interested in what folks know about this technology, > or > > where I could find out more because the Stryker site is not really > > very forthcoming. > > > > Thank you again > > > > with best wishes, > > > > 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.