Google+ posting from the ORS by Tony Svarczkopf
Orthopedic Research Society 2012. The guy on the left is at the mic “asking a question” about why he’d never use a metal-on-metal hip replacement. The guy behind him, whose head is turning red, is one of the two surgeons who pioneered the technology over the last 20 years (granted, he’s made millions of dollars, but he also spent a decade designing and redesigning one of the few devices that work), and he’s about to light that guy up. I don’t think he has any idea he’s behind him, or that he was even in the room. You probably had to be there, and would have to care about orthopedic research, but it was probably the most entertaining part of the day.
Tony added…
Briefly, if last year was characterized by frenzied pessimism with respect to metal on metal, this year is probably best characterized by a healthier, more balanced debate. First, that the causes of adverse reactions can be identified and potentially controlled. Especially with respect to patient specific hypersensitivity factors. Component orientation obviously had been identified first and presented last year. Specifically, the picture yesterday related to the third factor, design. Obviously, I am biased, but I tend to agree with Dr. McMinn. He argued that other companies saw promising early results from himself and Dr. Amstutz on the devices they’d meticulously designed over the course of a decade, rushed to design their own, failed, and now we are rushing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or the ASR/Durom as it seems. (ORS2012)