Hi, I understand that "supposedly" most hip replacements go well and that is why those people are not on forums. However, I do wonder if those with less-than-good outcomes just suffer in silence and are not counted. So basically I am nervous about how to proceed. I have a femur head that is collapsed and has been for about 6 years. It is fusing onto the socket that it should be rotating in. The ortho doc I went to back then because I was having a problem walking took X-rays to ID the problem and told me that, since I had no pain in it, he would not replace it.

Since then, my hip continues to NOT hurt. However, because it is locked in place, my back and my knee must do the movement and pain has developed in those two parts. My glute muscles also have atrophied. I did seek other opinions - one said it was too complicated for his approach, another said he would not do it because I did not have hip pain, and another said his approach could leave me in a wheelchair. I gave up for several years but, because of pain in knee, decided to get more opinions and see if knee could be fixed.

Now I have two ortho docs who say they can replace my hip. Both say I will probably still walk with a cane, probably still need a shoe lift, but I should get back "some" ROM -- I have no sideways ROM at all -- and that should help. Both say the operation will take about 2x as long as typical hip replacement and the scar will be much larger. My concern is that one says, for my situation, it has to be done from the posterior. The other says anterior. I know each doc has his/her preferences, but I would like to know what is best for MY situation. Surely not every approach is good for each situation, right? I don't want to endanger my already atrophied muscles, or get an infection from an incision that is very long, etc.

Any thoughts anyone cares to share? Thanks.