Happilyresurfaced
new member
Hi all,<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Reading through the many posts on forums in the world it strikes me that patients in general don't realize the importance of the make or type or resurfacing that the surgeon will give them. If the subject is taken up then the patients may many times repeat claims made by the manufacturer (or surgeon) that their particular device has better properties in one or more areas than other brands. Many of those claims just can't be proven yet but first need studying and long term follow up by independent hip registries to see if they really hold or not. So to go on claims like that does not seem wise.
One important factor however is hardly ever taken up, namely what the chosen make and type offer in the way of options (accessories) whenever a side step has to be taken, either in the initial operation or later when more work in the joint is required. <O:p></O:p>
Some of the 15 resurfacing makes on the market are very limited with the 'optional' hardware that they supply. Durom from Zimmer is one example. With on the other hand the good old BHR the patient can rest assure that a complete line of matching bits and pieces exists to tackle virtually any upcoming problem. BHR (and of course the BMHR just as well) is backed by a complete set of dysplasia cups of which the appropriate one can be placed in a patient with dysplasia or in stead of a failing cup or when the underlying bone has suffered trauma, without touching the other part of the implant. Revision operations from some other resurfacings than BHR will cause the patient to loose the complete resurfacing, while with BHR only one part may need exchange for another matching one. BHR heads can for instance be fitted on most of the modular shafts of common shaft manufacturers if something breaks down on the femoral side. <O:p></O:p>
With BHR the patient seems better of, with a higher guarantee that the original large metal on metal joint can be retained, regardless of the type of revision required. This dramatically shortens the operation time, danger of infection and trauma to the tissues, nerves and muscles.
The matching options that the BMHR offers is another good point when the patient and surgeon are not prepared yet to sacrifice the femoral neck.
Perhaps points to consider more when we decide on a surgeon and device?
Ron<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Reading through the many posts on forums in the world it strikes me that patients in general don't realize the importance of the make or type or resurfacing that the surgeon will give them. If the subject is taken up then the patients may many times repeat claims made by the manufacturer (or surgeon) that their particular device has better properties in one or more areas than other brands. Many of those claims just can't be proven yet but first need studying and long term follow up by independent hip registries to see if they really hold or not. So to go on claims like that does not seem wise.
One important factor however is hardly ever taken up, namely what the chosen make and type offer in the way of options (accessories) whenever a side step has to be taken, either in the initial operation or later when more work in the joint is required. <O:p></O:p>
Some of the 15 resurfacing makes on the market are very limited with the 'optional' hardware that they supply. Durom from Zimmer is one example. With on the other hand the good old BHR the patient can rest assure that a complete line of matching bits and pieces exists to tackle virtually any upcoming problem. BHR (and of course the BMHR just as well) is backed by a complete set of dysplasia cups of which the appropriate one can be placed in a patient with dysplasia or in stead of a failing cup or when the underlying bone has suffered trauma, without touching the other part of the implant. Revision operations from some other resurfacings than BHR will cause the patient to loose the complete resurfacing, while with BHR only one part may need exchange for another matching one. BHR heads can for instance be fitted on most of the modular shafts of common shaft manufacturers if something breaks down on the femoral side. <O:p></O:p>
With BHR the patient seems better of, with a higher guarantee that the original large metal on metal joint can be retained, regardless of the type of revision required. This dramatically shortens the operation time, danger of infection and trauma to the tissues, nerves and muscles.
The matching options that the BMHR offers is another good point when the patient and surgeon are not prepared yet to sacrifice the femoral neck.
Perhaps points to consider more when we decide on a surgeon and device?
Ron<O:p></O:p>