Thanks, I will visit that site. Any more feedback on the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing procedure? How does this compare to total hip replacement?
I had the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing procedure done a little over 5 months ago and oculdn't be more pleased with the results. Here are a few comparative observations based upon my own experience and opinions.
The surgery is actually a little more complicated than a normal THR and can take a little longer; I don't believe they have perfected a minimally invasive way to perform the work.
There are several excellent resources on the Internet to find an experienced surgeon; and there is no substitue for experience in this procedure.
My initial recovery was farther along in some ways than other people I know who had a THR; but I have no way to know how much of that should be attributed to the resurfacing system and how much to the difference between my motivation and physical condition vs. others I saw.
Being only 52, I was very concerned about what happens 20 years down the road if the device (or my bones) fails and I need to have a revision. The concept that my second procedure will probably be about like most THR patients first one is comforting. The saving of leg bone was a big factor in my decision, as was the metal on metal large ball engineering.
I have always had strong bone structure and have little concern of failure of my femeral neck and head and won't be surprised at all if I never need a revision - but f I do, the next one won't be so tramatic.
I have heard a lot of "claims" of advanced recovery speeds and marvalous stories of physical activity shortly after a BHR process; I don't put too much stock in claims that don't pass the smell test, i.e., one accounted a guy jumping rope at two weeks, another running in a 10K race at 4 weeks, etc.
I'm pain free, have good ROM, and I am confident that the BHR minimized my loss of bone and maxamized my ability to lead a normal life. Other than that, I can't think of anything else of relevence to offer.