Apology

June 10, 2004

It was arrogant and unfeeling of me to use language I did in my

initial postings. Especially the guinea pig comment. Sorry.

There is no published evidence to show BHR/Cormet 2000 superior to

others. No evidence to contrary either. A scientific trial to

demonstrate conclusively that one is better than the other almost

impossible to conduct because so many variables. If such studies

were possible to conduct easily, we would not have present turmoil

in THR market. Would not like to try and count the total number of

THR devices ever released onto the market. Some have not been very

good at all. It is patients that have largely paid the price of

these designs, that were released with the best of intentions? Whose

fault is that? OS? Or does innovation have to come at such a cost?

The stakes in hip resurfacing are particularly high as patients are

younger.

Genuinely worried about proliferation of new resurfacing devices. Is

this OK or will we eventually end up in same situation as Total Hip

Replacement market? Unfortunately ( and this my own fault) comments

were construed as direct attack on C+. Accept that Dr Amstutz has

made a pioneering contribution to Hip resurfacing and but for him

many of you would have had THR. Accept that C+ is device with a

worthy track record. Was wrong of me to imply otherwise. Pity that

US insurance companies will not fund Hip resurfacing. It was

difficult to get insurance companies to fund hip resurfacing in UK

until National Institute for Clinical Exellence (NICE) released a

guide cautiously approving concept of MOM resurfacing.

In US which regulatory body holds key to release of new devices? I

understand it is FDA? Is this for devices originating both inside

and outside US?

What do you all make of high profile media campaign re Jack Nicklaus

ceramic-on-ceramic hip replacement?

Recommended Posts