Hi everyone,
I posted 5-6 months ago about my experience with failed hip arthroscopy (2013), and low level of arthritis - so 4 different hip surgeons I consulted with did not feel confident that I would have a successful total hip replacement.
On April 3 2017 I had 2nd hip scope, surgeon found "a bit" of calcification and scar tissue at front of the joint. He says it *may* explain some of the pain I had after the 1st hip scope, but he's not sure. He found no significant arthritis. (therefore, I'm still not a great candidate for THR!)
Recovery is much easier this time. The real test will be how i feel in 6 months, then 1-2 years from now... I'm following the PT protocol, hoping the tendonitis & pain that occurs when sitting will subside. I don't know if/when I'll be able to ride an exercise bike, sitting and pedaling will hurt, but I want to try it.
What I'm really frustrated with, for all of us, is what are the options for older patients with confirmed labral tear + small amount of visible arthritis? Why do we have to stay in limbo (and in pain & disability) until joint space degrades? Is it truly a crapshoot to skip hip scope and go straight to THR? If the answer is yes, can they explain why this is so?
I consulted with 4 hip surgeons who do THR, and none of them could explain why, they just cited national data. (Well, I can't argue with that, I want to hear the data!) Then they left it up to me to decide, saying "Well, it MIGHT help you, odds are 30-50% of good outcome".
Yikes.
I just wonder if the implants for THR are designed specifically for people who already have advanced arthritis. But even so, the procedure for THR is to grind out any remaining cartilage (labrum), so in effect that erases your joint space altogether, which is like advanced arthritis (to my feeble layman's mind, anyway).