Some times bad things just happen. But...we can minimize that if we research. There are two things I would look for: how many hip replacements has she done and what kind of bad events had occurred (If the surgeon said none I would look elsewhere; as I said above sometimes stuff happens no matter how good the surgeon is). The second thing is the method. There are currently three principal methods -- posterior, anterior and superpath. The research I have seen suggests that the ultimate outcomes are similar but the pain is less as you go from posterior to anterior and then to superpath. I went for superpath but I was fortunate that the lead inventor was here and it was incredibly successful. He threw away the hospital instructions on what to do after a hip replacement and said he had only two instructions: be a couch potato for five weeks and take my medicine. He added that the one thing he couldn't do was make bones grow...hence the five weeks of relative inaction. With his permission, I also didn't take the medicine as I had no pain.

But...and this is a big but, he obviously was incredibly skilled at the operation. I was at my rheumatologist what is the top rated expert in his field in the city and his wife called while I was there and she was going to have the same surgeon do her hip the next day.

While I would choose the methodology in this order: superpath to anterior to posterior, I would put the experience and skill of the surgeon first. I would prefer the surgeon who has done hundreds of anterior replacements to one using superpath who is on his tenth even if his first nine were super successful. I want at least some muscle memory.

More important, IMO, than the age of the patient is the level of pain. My unscientific fear is that the longer the patient waits and his nerves continue to be irritated, the harder the recovery will be. I was in my mid seventies when I had mine done.