WE DEMAND HEALTH WARNINGS ON RUNNING SHOES

Longer lives mean hip surgery is booming (Gabrielle Giroday, Globe and Mail, July 27th, 2004)

There has been a 19-per-cent increase in the total number of hip replacements done since 1994-95, as well as a higher incidence of repeats. Of all hip replacement surgeries, 11.3 per cent are repeats, meaning there are more sufferers than ever who've made multiple voyages to the operating room in their quest for a pain-free existence. Mrs. Doucette, an active swimmer, runner and stretcher, struggled with what she called "terminal low-grade pain" for most of her adult life.

At 50, sick of limited mobility and her inability to golf or use a Nautilus machine, she opted for a gruelling process where both hip joints were replaced, eight months apart.

The upshot? Mrs. Doucette could finally go about her classroom duties as a Scarborough, Ont., high-school math teacher without fear of continually increasing pain.

"Hip replacement is going up because people are living longer and know what can be done," Dr. Hugh Cameron, a hip and knee specialist at Toronto's Sunnybrook and Women's College Orthopaedic and Arthritic Institute, said.

Dr. Cameron has done hip surgery on more than 3,000 clients, and could remember volumes of patients from their early 20s to mid-60s who will be facing at least two major hip replacements in their lifetimes.

"If you get a hip replacement earlier in your life, you're going to face another one sooner or later. The more active you are, the faster the lining of the new hip wears," Dr. Cameron said.

Dr. John Antoniou, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Montreal's McGill medical school, concurs. "We're seeing an increase in the second and third time 'round surgery due to implants wearing down. With people staying alive and active longer, we can hope with the newer generation of implants that longevity will increase," he said.

If smokers and the obese are to be condemned for the health costs of their lifestyles, why not joggers and fervent athletes? What interest does the state have in condemning one and promoting the other? Posted by Peter Burnet at July 27, 2004 11:25 AM