Love it when you're surprised. I bet it wasn't the first time concerning Blaise.
The question is though when did you have yours done and how much damage was done to you joints before you had it done? The condition is called a congenital impingement and IF you have the surgery at a young age your odds of having it be completely successful are MUCH higher. I should have had my left hip done when I was his age but this wasn't commonly done back then as far as I know. My orthopedic surgeon said that IF I would have had mine fixed in my early 20s I would have probably never needed a hip replacement. I don't believe this surgery will hamper his prospects at all given his age. This is a preventative measure rather than a measure to try to reduce pain or restore function. Big difference.
At what age did you have yours done? There can be a huge difference in the technical skill of any given surgeon as well. A friend's daughter just had both hips operated on was out of dance for only a few months. I'm not talking little girls tap. I'm talking big time competitive dance and ballet. She's got scholarship offers to some of the most prestigious dance academies in the country. I realize there's some difference, but a lot depends on the age when the surgery is done and whether or not there's damage already to the articular cartilage. Obviously no surgery on a hip or shoulder is a good thing, but I think your personal experience is skewing your view.
How old were you, and isn't the procedures improving, besides his history of success with the prior procedure? Sorry posted too soon.
You had yours done too late to expect much in the way of restorative results IMO. Usually by the time somebody reaches their 40s you're talking palliative (alleviation of pain) results versus the prevention of degenerative joint disease. I had irreversible degenerative changes in my hip at 40 and had a replacement at 50 because of my impingement. There's a HUGE difference in the prognosis for that surgery in an 18-20 year old versus a 40 year old.
