Ryan Taylor - Done

[goiahawkeyes]

Yea...and retired pretty early.

I'm pretty sure Tom and Terry are now the age Gable was when he retired. Seems crazy to me.

 

[brucefan]

Joint resurfacing or an osteotomy would be more likely in a younger patient, though obviously I don't know what all he's had done.

Agreed. As someone who needs a hip replacement myself, the reason they are reluctant to perform them on young patients (and I'm talking less than 60 years old) is that they only last 10-15 years before they wear out and need to be replaced again. And each successive replacement carries its own risks as well as diminished effectiveness. I would be very very surprised if he was getting a total hip replacement.

 

[rossel 33]

I'm pretty sure Tom and Terry are now the age Gable was when he retired. Seems crazy to me.

Almost. I think Gable was 49 when he retired, and Brands are 48.

Gable had just had his 2nd hip replaced before retiring. I've read that he had a torn meniscus in his knee, before the '72 Olympics, and chose not to have surgery until after the Olympics. Back then, it wasn't arthroscopic, and the basically took out the meniscus, so he ended up with bone on bone.

The knee problem created chronic stress on his hip, which in turn, put stress on his good hip. The 'knee bone's connected to the thigh bone" ...etc.

Fortunately for Brands bros, they've not had the kind of injuries Gable had, and, of course, medicine has improved. Terry was still able to put a good wuppin' on McD, a few years back as i recall.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

Terry was still able to put a good wuppin' on McD, a few years back as i recall.

It would be interesting to see how Tom and Terry would do in a match vs Gilman, Clark, etc. I can't imagine at 48 they would win unless they had a size advantage.

 

[FineMaterial]

Agreed. As someone who needs a hip replacement myself, the reason they are reluctant to perform them on young patients (and I'm talking less than 60 years old) is that they only last 10-15 years before they wear out and need to be replaced again. And each successive replacement carries its own risks as well as diminished effectiveness. I would be very very surprised if he was getting a total hip replacement.

New materials have improved the numbers, with weight being the biggest factor, he should be OK.
"One very large study found that 80% of hip replacements were functioning well after 15 years"

 

[brucefan]

New materials have improved the numbers, with weight being the biggest factor, he should be OK.
"One very large study found that 80% of hip replacements were functioning well after 15 years"

He's what, 21? 22? So a hip replacement that lasts 20 years will get him to 42, maybe? And another one will get him to 60? And a third will be needed to get him into old age? Matthew Squire is an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The article I link below includes this quote from him: "The first replacement has the potential to provide the greatest satisfaction and function to the patient. The second comes closer to recovering a patient's normal function, but it's less likely to be as good. After that, it's no longer a linear progression. You see less function with more surgery."

And another quote — and note that he's talking about patients in their 40s: "That eventual decline on surgical "investment" can become a major problem for young and active patients, who place enough stress on their joints to require them to contemplate their first hip surgery in their 40s. Squire tells younger patients that given the expected life span of today's hip replacement technology, the chances are good they'll need at least a second replacement, if not a third."

http://www.med.wisc.edu/news/how-many-hip-replacements-are-too-many/856

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Fortunately, advances are continually being made in all areas of medicine. Odds are that there will be other options in a couple of decades that will probably have better outcomes, even for re-ops.

 

[brucefan]

That is a very good point!