Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

[Guest guest]

Funny you should mention this one Rog - I actually wrote to the

medical post today and asked them for more information .... wonder if

I will hear anything. I know they are just reporting on what was

said, but I have feeling it was somewhat censored.

Pamela

>

http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=20040705_184043_5496

>

> The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical Post. In

it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said early

results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing remarks.

> Negative information such as this is not good - it is however as we

have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> Where do they get there facts from?

>

> Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Please keep us informed if you receive any information from them.

The figures posted sound like what we refer to as a " SWAG "

(scientific wild ass guess ... but without the science).

I've been thinking of approaching a local paper about resurfacing

as an option to THR for younger more active patients, to educate the

public that there is another option. Does anyone have any thoughts

on this?

Cheers,

Fred

Dr. Gross, C2K 1/21/04

> >

> http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

content=20040705_184043_5496

> >

> > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

Post. In

> it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said early

> results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing remarks.

> > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however as

we

> have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > Where do they get there facts from?

> >

> > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Pamela - I agree that the figures don't tally with those already published

for modern prosthesis and without substantiation should be taken lightly.

Hope you get a reply to you letter and let us all know what they say.

They are griping on about the metal particles again but every test /survey

has not proven there is a concern and the ion level diminishes substantially

within a couple of years.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> Funny you should mention this one Rog - I actually wrote to the

> medical post today and asked them for more information .... wonder if

> I will hear anything. I know they are just reporting on what was

> said, but I have feeling it was somewhat censored.

>

> Pamela

>

> >

>

http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=20040705_184043_5496

> >

> > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical Post. In

> it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said early

> results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing remarks.

> > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however as we

> have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > Where do they get there facts from?

> >

> > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Pamela - I agree that the figures don't tally with those already published

for modern prosthesis and without substantiation should be taken lightly.

Hope you get a reply to you letter and let us all know what they say.

They are griping on about the metal particles again but every test /survey

has not proven there is a concern and the ion level diminishes substantially

within a couple of years.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> Funny you should mention this one Rog - I actually wrote to the

> medical post today and asked them for more information .... wonder if

> I will hear anything. I know they are just reporting on what was

> said, but I have feeling it was somewhat censored.

>

> Pamela

>

> >

>

http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=20040705_184043_5496

> >

> > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical Post. In

> it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said early

> results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing remarks.

> > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however as we

> have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > Where do they get there facts from?

> >

> > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Rog and Pamela,

I went out and read that article and it is really sad to see apparently

highly educated people making such strangely uninformed

statements..........i.e. Two paras says it all - I quote direct

" Dr. Treacy-who works with Dr. McMinn, designer of the Birmingham Hip

Resurfacing-told the audience he had only a 0.8% failure rate in 2,500

cases, mainly due to infections or femoral neck fractures, and a dislocation

rate of one in 1,000. In contrast, dislocation rates with conventional hip

arthroplasty are reported to be 1% to 4%.

Dr. Waddell, an orthopedic surgeon at St. 's Hospital in

Toronto, said early results of hip resurfacing suggest the survivorship of

the implants will be about 90% at 10 years, whereas the U.S. National

Institutes of Health has said no implant with less than a 95% retention rate

at 10 years should be considered satisfactory. "

Now we know Dr. Treacy has actually done it for 10 years......... whereas

just where did Dr. Waddell get his figures other than his

imagination........... so I too hope to hear what you turned up in due

course Pamela...........

To me the article is more about a bunch of doctors having a moan about

patients getting more informed and starting to get the pressure

applied........ Dr Waddell didn't say who was doing the promotion that 'he'

didn't like........ He and some of his collegues must just hate lists like

these...........and people getting themselves informed......... Obviously,

anyone wanting a resurface would be wasting their time visiting the good Dr

Waddell..........and Dr. is to be congratulated on his obvious

enthusiam in light of much opposition..........

I suspect transcripts of conferences here in Australia about 4 years ago

would have said the same though......... and the remnants of opposition

still remain - basically from those who I suspect simply don't like the

'more technically demanding' aspect of doing resurfacing......... more scope

for error there and thus one presumes more chances of being in trouble for

negligence...........

All just made me glad I live in Australia............

Edith LBHR Dr. L Walter Syd Aust 8/02

> Pamela - I agree that the figures don't tally with those already published

> for modern prosthesis and without substantiation should be taken lightly.

> Hope you get a reply to you letter and let us all know what they say.

> They are griping on about the metal particles again but every test /survey

> has not proven there is a concern and the ion level diminishes

substantially

> within a couple of years.

> Rog

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> content=20040705_184043_5496

> > >

> > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> Post. In

> > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

early

> > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

remarks.

> > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

as

> we

> > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > >

> > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

Hi Rog,

I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

orthopedic surgery.

Regards,

Dr. Mark 46 yo

R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> content=20040705_184043_5496

> > >

> > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> Post. In

> > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

early

> > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

remarks.

> > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

as

> we

> > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > >

> > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

Hi Rog,

I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

orthopedic surgery.

Regards,

Dr. Mark 46 yo

R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Edith & Pamela

My money is on Treacy - in Poker terms 'all in'. I have met him and spoken

to him on several occasions, have spoken to other patients of his and

spoken to the nursing staff who work for him. I trust the man and believe

his figures entirely. His team collect their own data which is separately

collected from individual patients by the NHS for correlation.

Edith's comments are worthy of making. How can a learned body make such

statements.

Rog

Re: Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

> Hi Rog and Pamela,

>

> I went out and read that article and it is really sad to see apparently

> highly educated people making such strangely uninformed

> statements..........i.e. Two paras says it all - I quote direct

>

> " Dr. Treacy-who works with Dr. McMinn, designer of the Birmingham

Hip

> Resurfacing-told the audience he had only a 0.8% failure rate in 2,500

> cases, mainly due to infections or femoral neck fractures, and a

dislocation

> rate of one in 1,000. In contrast, dislocation rates with conventional hip

> arthroplasty are reported to be 1% to 4%.

>

> Dr. Waddell, an orthopedic surgeon at St. 's Hospital in

> Toronto, said early results of hip resurfacing suggest the survivorship of

> the implants will be about 90% at 10 years, whereas the U.S. National

> Institutes of Health has said no implant with less than a 95% retention

rate

> at 10 years should be considered satisfactory. "

>

> Now we know Dr. Treacy has actually done it for 10 years......... whereas

> just where did Dr. Waddell get his figures other than his

> imagination........... so I too hope to hear what you turned up in due

> course Pamela...........

>

> To me the article is more about a bunch of doctors having a moan about

> patients getting more informed and starting to get the pressure

> applied........ Dr Waddell didn't say who was doing the promotion that

'he'

> didn't like........ He and some of his collegues must just hate lists

like

> these...........and people getting themselves informed......... Obviously,

> anyone wanting a resurface would be wasting their time visiting the good

Dr

> Waddell..........and Dr. is to be congratulated on his

obvious

> enthusiam in light of much opposition..........

>

> I suspect transcripts of conferences here in Australia about 4 years ago

> would have said the same though......... and the remnants of opposition

> still remain - basically from those who I suspect simply don't like the

> 'more technically demanding' aspect of doing resurfacing......... more

scope

> for error there and thus one presumes more chances of being in trouble for

> negligence...........

>

> All just made me glad I live in Australia............

>

> Edith LBHR Dr. L Walter Syd Aust 8/02

>

>

>

> > Pamela - I agree that the figures don't tally with those already

published

> > for modern prosthesis and without substantiation should be taken

lightly.

> > Hope you get a reply to you letter and let us all know what they say.

> > They are griping on about the metal particles again but every test

/survey

> > has not proven there is a concern and the ion level diminishes

> substantially

> > within a couple of years.

> > Rog

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dr Mark

With positive results in mind I wouldn't mind creating a questionnaire based

on that sent to UK patients by the NHS (why try to reinvent the wheel :-).

If there is enough support we can do our own statistics. Maybe the

professional bodies would then be able to be rebuffed by the 'Surfacehippy'

data. It may also be of benefit to those supporting insurance claims. If

we got enough to take part we could possibly become the first published

worldwide data - we could split it into USA - Europe etc as well

I will gauge the level of response to this email to ascertain to whether it

worthwhile to do.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dr Mark

With positive results in mind I wouldn't mind creating a questionnaire based

on that sent to UK patients by the NHS (why try to reinvent the wheel :-).

If there is enough support we can do our own statistics. Maybe the

professional bodies would then be able to be rebuffed by the 'Surfacehippy'

data. It may also be of benefit to those supporting insurance claims. If

we got enough to take part we could possibly become the first published

worldwide data - we could split it into USA - Europe etc as well

I will gauge the level of response to this email to ascertain to whether it

worthwhile to do.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Rog,

Great idea. I think there are lot of positives from this kind of

action. I will talk with OS friends of mine as to what they would

like to see on this kind of questionairre to get their attention in

order to change their mindset. Lets stay in touch. My home e-mail

is smhs76@.... I will give you my phone number when you contact

me through AOL.

Regards,

Dr. Mark 46 yo

R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

a and my home. giveMY ty. riereittei3 t oth responsea For I

> > > > >

> > > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > > >

> > > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > > Post. In

> > > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> > early

> > > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> > remarks.

> > > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is

however

> > as

> > > we

> > > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > > >

> > > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> > Hi Rog,

> > I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their

facts

> > from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed

journals.

> > This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As

a

> > result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> > are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data

very

> > easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> > occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to

show

> > up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> > reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should

try

> > to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond

the 2-

> > 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their

operative

> > data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> > database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially

the

> > better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> > orthopedic surgery.

> > Regards,

> > Dr. Mark 46 yo

> > R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

> >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Hey All! Wish I could show you all the article I cut out of the

Memphis paper today. It is an invitation to anyone who suffers from

Chronic Hip Pain and for those who have been delaying surgery due to

their young age...this is a free educational seminar titled " Hip

Replacement In The Active Individual " It goes on to say " If you are

suffering from hip pain, hip replacement surgery may be in your

future. The thought of surgery may leave you with questions and

concerns-particularly if you are a young, active individual. " What

Implant Option Is Right For Me? " What Is Its Life-Span? And, " What

About Recovery? " Anyway, a local orthopaedic surgeon will be the

speaker and this seminar is sponsored by Medical. We'll hear

about the ceramic-ceramic technology. Former patients will be on hand

to share their experiences....it says " We invite you to learn. Have

questions answered. " I'm very excited that this is being offered and

I sure hope they talk about resurfacing...you can be sure that if

they don't talk about it, I will! (And to Dave our rep..I'm

gonna be on my best behavior so don't worry.) I recognize the name

of the doc as one of the more progressive in town. I may have to use

an alias for my husbands sake. It's next Tuesday evening. I'll keep

you posted. Hey Fred..or anyone..how do you think I should approach

this group? Susie in Memphis

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed

journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the

2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their

operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Hey All! Wish I could show you all the article I cut out of the

Memphis paper today. It is an invitation to anyone who suffers from

Chronic Hip Pain and for those who have been delaying surgery due to

their young age...this is a free educational seminar titled " Hip

Replacement In The Active Individual " It goes on to say " If you are

suffering from hip pain, hip replacement surgery may be in your

future. The thought of surgery may leave you with questions and

concerns-particularly if you are a young, active individual. " What

Implant Option Is Right For Me? " What Is Its Life-Span? And, " What

About Recovery? " Anyway, a local orthopaedic surgeon will be the

speaker and this seminar is sponsored by Medical. We'll hear

about the ceramic-ceramic technology. Former patients will be on hand

to share their experiences....it says " We invite you to learn. Have

questions answered. " I'm very excited that this is being offered and

I sure hope they talk about resurfacing...you can be sure that if

they don't talk about it, I will! (And to Dave our rep..I'm

gonna be on my best behavior so don't worry.) I recognize the name

of the doc as one of the more progressive in town. I may have to use

an alias for my husbands sake. It's next Tuesday evening. I'll keep

you posted. Hey Fred..or anyone..how do you think I should approach

this group? Susie in Memphis

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed

journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the

2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their

operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Susie,

As the seminar is sponsored by Medical I would think that

they would not get upset if you brought it up. You may want to talk

to the representative in your area to see how receptive the

OS is to resurfacing. You probably don't want to bring it up if

he's going to portray it as voodoo medicine. Resurfacing is an

available alternative though. People should be aware that it exists

and what the advantages are.

It would be interesting to see what he says the incidence rate of

dislocation and limitations are with a ceramic THR for the younger

more active patient.

Let us know how it goes.

Fred

Dr. Gross, C2K 1/21/04

> > > > >

> > > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > > >

> > > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > > Post. In

> > > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto,

said

> > early

> > > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> > remarks.

> > > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is

however

> > as

> > > we

> > > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > > >

> > > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> > Hi Rog,

> > I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their

facts

> > from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed

> journals.

> > This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As

a

> > result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If

you

> > are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data

very

> > easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> > occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to

show

> > up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the

more

> > reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should

try

> > to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond

the

> 2-

> > 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their

> operative

> > data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> > database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially

the

> > better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> > orthopedic surgery.

> > Regards,

> > Dr. Mark 46 yo

> > R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

> >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Susie,

As the seminar is sponsored by Medical I would think that

they would not get upset if you brought it up. You may want to talk

to the representative in your area to see how receptive the

OS is to resurfacing. You probably don't want to bring it up if

he's going to portray it as voodoo medicine. Resurfacing is an

available alternative though. People should be aware that it exists

and what the advantages are.

It would be interesting to see what he says the incidence rate of

dislocation and limitations are with a ceramic THR for the younger

more active patient.

Let us know how it goes.

Fred

Dr. Gross, C2K 1/21/04

> > > > >

> > > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > > >

> > > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > > Post. In

> > > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto,

said

> > early

> > > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> > remarks.

> > > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is

however

> > as

> > > we

> > > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > > >

> > > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

> >

> > Hi Rog,

> > I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their

facts

> > from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed

> journals.

> > This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As

a

> > result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If

you

> > are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data

very

> > easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> > occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to

show

> > up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the

more

> > reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should

try

> > to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond

the

> 2-

> > 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their

> operative

> > data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> > database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially

the

> > better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> > orthopedic surgery.

> > Regards,

> > Dr. Mark 46 yo

> > R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

> >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

I agree with your proposal and will support the creation of a questionnaire.

If we can get 1000+ resurfaced patients to reply we shall have more than a

statistical sample of, admittedly, biased and subjective views, but,

equally, of valid, valuable and credible data. Even recent patients as I

(Feb 2004) can attest to the unexpected benefits and improvements that this

procedure yields.

Dan Milosevic

Re: Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

Dr Mark

With positive results in mind I wouldn't mind creating a questionnaire based

on that sent to UK patients by the NHS (why try to reinvent the wheel :-).

If there is enough support we can do our own statistics. Maybe the

professional bodies would then be able to be rebuffed by the 'Surfacehippy'

data. It may also be of benefit to those supporting insurance claims. If

we got enough to take part we could possibly become the first published

worldwide data - we could split it into USA - Europe etc as well

I will gauge the level of response to this email to ascertain to whether it

worthwhile to do.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I agree with your proposal and will support the creation of a questionnaire.

If we can get 1000+ resurfaced patients to reply we shall have more than a

statistical sample of, admittedly, biased and subjective views, but,

equally, of valid, valuable and credible data. Even recent patients as I

(Feb 2004) can attest to the unexpected benefits and improvements that this

procedure yields.

Dan Milosevic

Re: Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

Dr Mark

With positive results in mind I wouldn't mind creating a questionnaire based

on that sent to UK patients by the NHS (why try to reinvent the wheel :-).

If there is enough support we can do our own statistics. Maybe the

professional bodies would then be able to be rebuffed by the 'Surfacehippy'

data. It may also be of benefit to those supporting insurance claims. If

we got enough to take part we could possibly become the first published

worldwide data - we could split it into USA - Europe etc as well

I will gauge the level of response to this email to ascertain to whether it

worthwhile to do.

Rog

Re: USA Resurfacing Results?

>

> > > >

> > > http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?

> > content=20040705_184043_5496

> > > >

> > > > The above is a Canadian article from the July 2004 Medical

> > Post. In

> > > it Dr Waddell of St 's Hospital in Toronto, said

> early

> > > results suggest survivorship will be 90% at 10 years.

> > > > He goes on to comment further with anti - resurfacing

> remarks.

> > > > Negative information such as this is not good - it is however

> as

> > we

> > > have been told to expect from our fellow Canadian members.

> > > > Where do they get there facts from?

> > > >

> > > > Rog BHR both hips Treacy 2001

>

> Hi Rog,

> I read the article as posted on the webpage. They get their facts

> from anecdotal data and the few articles in peer-reviewed journals.

> This is because amount of data is very sparse at the moment. As a

> result there is alot of bias out there by the uninformed. If you

> are in a trial in the USA you can not release prelminary data very

> easily and so the good successful short-term results that are

> occurring from Amstutz, Gross, Mont, etc,etc are not going to show

> up in a peer reviewed journal for sometime. This is all the more

> reason whey everyone who has received a hip resurfacing should try

> to return for their follow-up visits to their OS - even beyond the 2-

> 5 year mark. Also everyone should continue to enter their operative

> data and follow-up visits and assessments in this webpages

> database. The more good data shown officially and unofficially the

> better the chances this procedure will accepted in mainstream

> orthopedic surgery.

> Regards,

> Dr. Mark 46 yo

> R C2K 7/21/04 Dr. Gross

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >