Re: Re: Resurfacing or PAO . For CINDY

[Guest guest]

At 05:34 PM 7/11/2004 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Cindy

>

>I was wondering if I could ask....you had your hip/s resurfaced in

>1996, how do they feel today? That's been ~10yrs. Do you feel that

>resurfacing could benefit someone, who used to be very active, under

>the age of 30?

Becky,

I was turned down for PAO in 1996. I was told to come back when I couldn't

stand the pain any more and he would then do THR's, but he was hoping it

would be at least ten years before I came back. From then on, I became

more and more disabled. Not really more pain (after all, bone on bone can

only hurt so bad), but more and more restricted so that I couldn't even put

on socks without a sock helper for about two years pre-op. I was

resurfaced in 2001 (thus the dates after my signature), so am just over

three years out. If my only choice were resurfacing vs THR, for me, that

would be a no-brainer. I have a friend who has bilateral dysplasia and has

had a PAO and now bilat THR's and she has had nothing but trouble with

them, so I am incredibly biased towards resurfacing ;-)

I, on the other hand, am still improving, and am actually considering

walking a marathon as one of my long-term goals. I finally did my

anniversary hike to the top of Multnomah Falls yesterday. My legs are

sore, and yes, I have blisters, but the hips have absolutely no pain! When

I got to the top, I knelt down and dunked my face in the water--a baptism

of sorts. There was no consideration about watching how I knelt, and in

fact, I realized that I was completely catywampus, bent way past 90

degrees, knees splayed inward, feet turned every which way on the rocks

trying not to fall in. So it was more than just the walking part that I

still find miraculous. A friend of mine trains women to walk marathons,

and when she suggested I think about it a year ago, I told her hell would

have to freeze over first. Now here I am, seriously considering it!

One of the problems with CHD is that the funky joint mechanics cause

additional stress on an artificial joint, thus they tend to wear out much

faster than for those with " garden variety " OA. A joint that might last 20

years normally, may only last 7-10 in a dysplastic joint, thus the need for

more revisions. Also the dislocation rate for CHD patients is WAY higher

for standard THR's. With the new metal/metal resurfacing devices (that are

getting less new every day ;-), there has been almost NO dislocation (I

know of two--one guy fell off a tall ladder, and the other was trying yoga

poses only a few days post-op), and I have more faith in the wearability of

metal than I do of any form of plastic.

Hope this helps...

Cindy

C+ 5/25/01 and 6/28/01