Rider1400 wrote:So the way I read the article is the study is on a group of people who came in needing a revision. So they are gathering data on the failed IPPs I see no percentage of failure rate. Only thing discussed is what caused failed in this group that needed them. Could only guess that the Drs that did the revisions might not have even done the original implant. So if I used a so so Dr to do my implant and I had a failure, then I would definitely go to one of the higher volume Drs to get a revision. A lot of Drs won’t even do revisions! No corolation between how many implants were done in the given time frame in the USA!! Only data on the ones that came in for revision. I’m sure you will but correct me if I’m wrong
When failed ipps fail after two years (median) doesn't that tell you something ? Did they cherry pick devices that failed early ?... SIMPLY if ipps commonly fail after 10 yrs+ , the median time to failure wouldn't have been 2 years...or you would commonly see devices that had survived 10+ years on MAUDE database or here on this miserable forum or on reddit or anywhere.
"Only data on the ones that came for revision"....and those devices that fail after 10+ years don't come for revisions ??where did they go ? SIMPLY given that these devices inevitabley fail where do long survivors go ? And don't tell me busy fucking


I hope you see the idea.
And what do "high volume implanters" have anything to in this topic? Their hands regardless of their high competence won't be magically blessing the crappy mechanical material for better longevitiy...whether tubings in Titan or every piece in AMS.
Sorry for the language...I'm fighting the thought not you personally...you have all my respect truely.