[ravxx]

Could this allow for someone to have an advantage? I was reading Conor McGregor may have a slight advantage after breaking his leg due to a new special type of rod they attached to his leg that may make it more resistant to breaking.

[lostlogin]

Logically yes, but there are a lot of downsides. Here [1] is a paper discussing long bone rodding in athletes.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560006/

[ortusdux]

There are reportedly some exercises/trainings you can do to increase bone density in those regards.

https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-in-the-wild/2021/07/14/a-s...

[hacoo]

It is common for practitioners of Muai Thai and other kickboxing styles to harden their shins by whacking them with hard objects, or rolling something hard like a bottle across the bone. Sparring and hitting the heavy bag also harden your bones over time.

Kicks are normally blocked with the lower leg in Muai Thai. This often results in shin-on-shin contact which can be very painful for both fighters. So the point isn't so much to prevent full bone breaks (which are very rare) as to toughen the bone enough to handle this abuse... and make sure it hurts more for the other guy than it does for you.

[loeg]

For example, resistance training increases bone density.

[antoniojtorres]

I have to wonder how large the advantage may be if even present at all. Excluding any residual mobility issues from the surgery there’s still all the other aspects of leg kicks he has to deal with like the brutal pain a leg kick causes. I don’t know, I think that might just be people min maxing a little too much.

[hacoo]

Yeah, it would be a small advantage at best. Leg kicks very rarely break bones, usually they rely on causing pain and damage to tissue. And surgery will result in lost training time, plus the risk of something going wrong long term...

[calamari4065]

Anyone who's had orthopedic surgery will tell you, your limb/joint is never the same. Absolutely no one would choose it if the alternative weren't worse.

[chrisco255]

I dunno, I've spoken to old people who have gotten hip replacement, and they told me they regret they didn't do it sooner, as it allowed them to golf again, etc. Seems like in some cases, it isn't "the same", it's actually better.

[Arrath]

To be fair there are differences in condition when someone 50/60/70+ gets a hip replaced and someone in their prime having it. The former will have had decades more wear and tear and overall degradation on their joints that the latter will not yet have had. The distant memories of what their hips were like may be faint enough they don't even really recall whether its better or not.

Anecdotally I've also met older folks who expressed wishing they'd done it sooner for knee/hip replacements. I also have a friend with a health issue that required both hips replaced at 25, and they expressed frustration at the recuperation and physical therapy process, and they dread the fact that they're young enough for the hip replacements to need replaced themselves in a few decades, an issue the older recipients generally don't have to worry about.

Anyway, that's just a long way in saying, "Do we have bionic hip implants 125% better than natural that anyone with means should get if they want?" and the answer being "Not yet"

[hotpotamus]

You've hit the nail on the head. I also have a childhood hip condition (Perthes disease) that has had me looking at hip replacements since my 20's and having the same fears as your friend.

Looking at pro athletes is sort of instructive; essentially none of them have returned to play after a hip replacement (Bo Jackson kind of, but in limited capacity). A few, most famously Andy Murray, have returned after hip resurfacing, so it's probably about as close to a natural hip as possible, but likely still a bit inferior.

[depereo]

In general a doctor is going to recommend and proceed with a hip replacement because it has been proven to have a positive outcome on quality of life, even considering the risks associated with surgery.

Someone getting a hip replacement is getting one because their existing hip is substantially impaired.

Yes it's better than their situation immediately before the surgery. It's probably not better than when they were thirty.

[calamari4065]

Compared to a broken hip, literally anything is better. Compared to a healthy hip, a replacement is always worse.

Which is the precise reason we only do joint replacements after the joint is beyond repair. We don't do hip replacements on healthy 28 year old marathon runners. To do so would markedly reduce their quality of life in both the long and short term.

Again, most orthopedic patients will tell you that a replaced or repaired joint is never the same as it was when it was healthy. But living with such a damaged joint is so incredibly painful and difficult that anyone would choose surgery every time.

If your daily life is 9/10 pain, a 3/10 seems like a godsend. If you live your life with no pain, opting for surgery that leaves you with 3/10 for the rest of your life is a pretty bad decision.

[Geisterde]

My general opinion is that if you can wait it might be a good move. I know a few knee replacements that had this advice and the replacement they got was technologically better than was available at the time. If something is stopping you from living well then of course.

[burnished]

You're neglecting that those old hips have degraded. They don't mean they wish they got a hip replacement at 30 years old.