Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 470, Issue 2, pp 373–381 | Cite as

Ceramic Bearings for Total Hip Arthroplasty Have High Survivorship at 10 Years

  • James A. D’Antonio
  • William N. Capello
  • Marybeth Naughton
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

Abstract

Background

Ceramic bearings were introduced to reduce wear and increase long-term survivorship of total hip arthroplasty. In a previous study comparing ceramic with metal-on-polyethylene at 5 to 8 years, we found higher survivorship and no osteolysis for the ceramic bearings.

Questions/Purposes

We asked whether ceramic bearings have equal or superior survivorship compared with that for metal-on-polyethylene at longer followup; we also determined survivorship of the implant systems, the presence or absence of radiographic osteolysis, and incidence of device squeaking.

Methods

Five surgeons at five sites have followed 189 patients (216 hips) for a minimum of 10 years and average of 10.3 years (range, 10–12.4 years) comparing alumina ceramic bearings (144 hips) with cobalt chrome-on-polyethylene bearings (72 hips). We determined Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the bearing surface and implant systems and collected radiographic and clinical data.

Results

We observed no difference between the control metal-on-polyethylene and the alumina-bearing couple cohorts with regard to bearing-related failures (98.9% versus 99.1%). Revisions for any reason occurred in 10.5% of the control patients and 3.1% of the patients with alumina bearings. All femoral implants remain well fixed (100%), whereas one acetabular component (1%) is unstable in the control group. Osteolysis occurred in 26% of the control patients and in none of the patients with alumina bearings. Squeaking occurred in two of 144 hips (1.4%) of the patients with ceramic bearings.

Conclusions

Patients receiving the ceramic-on-ceramic bearings had fewer revisions for any reason and less osteolysis than the control metal-on-polyethylene at 10 years. Our data suggest ceramic bearings continue to provide an option for the young and more active patient and provide for a measure to compare other new alternative bearings that are currently available.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2456–2463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehler M, Knahr K, Plenk HJ Jr, Walter A, Salzer M, Schreiber V. Long-term results of uncemented alumina acetabular implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:53–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT, Naughton M. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(Suppl 1):39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Ramakrishnan R, Naughton M. Continued improved wear with an annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:825–830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevillotte C, Pibarot V, Carret JP, Bejui-Hugues J, Guyen O. Nine years follow-up of 100 ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010 Dec 21 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chevillotte C, Trousdale RT, Chen Q, Guyen O, An KN. The 2009 Frank Stinchfield Award: ‘Hip squeaking’: a biomechanical study of ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:345–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke IC. Role of ceramic implants: design and clinical success with total hip prosthetic ceramic-to-ceramic bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;282:19–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT, Naughton M, Sutton K. Alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:164–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Bierbaum B, Ramakrishnan R, Naughton M, Sutton K. Five-year experience with Crossfire highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:143–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumbleton JH, D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Wang A. The basis for a second-generation highly cross-linked UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:265–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:649–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Girard J, Bocquet D, Autissier G, Fouilleron N, Fron D, Migaud H. Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients thirty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2419–2426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hannouche D, Nich C, Bizot P, Meunier A, Nizard R, Sedel L. Fractures of ceramic bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:19–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture: treatment by mold arthroplasty: an end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:66–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hellman EJ, Capello WN, Feinberg JR. Omnifit cementless total hip arthroplasty: a 10 year average follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;364:164–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heros RJ, Willmann G. Ceramics in total hip arthroplasty: history, mechanical properties, clinical results, and current manufacturing state of the art. Semin Arthroplasty. 1998;9:114–122.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmer P, Nielsen PT. Fracture of ceramic femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:567–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarrett CA, Ranawat AS, Bruzzone M, Blum YC, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. The squeaking hip: a phenomenon of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1344–1349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnston RC, Fitxgerald JR, Harris WH, Muller ME, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of cementless THA. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:162–168.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kabo JM, Gebhard JS, Loren G, Amstutz HC. In vivo wear of polyethylene acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:254–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kress AM, Schmidt R, Holzwarth U, Forst R, Mueller LA. Excellent results with cementless total hip arthroplasty and alumina-on-alumina pairing: minimum ten-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2011;35:195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee YK, Ha YC, Yoo JJ, Koo KH, Toon KS, Kim HJ. Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty at minimum 10 year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1715–1718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lewis PM, Al-Belooshi A, Olsen M, Schemitch EH, Waddell JP. Prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:392–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lusty PK, Tai CC, Sew-Hoy RP, Walter WL, Walter WK, Zicat BA. Third-generation alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mahoney OM, Dimon JH. Unsatisfactory results with a ceramic total hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:663–671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;91:773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Murphy SB, Ecker TM, Tannast M. Two- to 9-year clinical results of alumina ceramic-on-ceramic THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:97–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park YS, Park SJ, Lim SJ. Ten-year results after cementless THA with sandwich-type alumina ceramic bearing. Orthopedics. 2010;33:796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Restrepo C, Matar WY, Parvizi J, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Natural history of squeaking after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2340–2345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Restrepo C, Post ZD, Kai B, Hozack WJ. The effect of stem design on the prevalence of squeaking following ceramic-on-ceramic bearing total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:550–557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmalzried TP, Huk OL. Patient factors and wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sedel L. Evolution of alumina-on-alumina implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:48–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Walter WL, O’Toole GC, Walter WK, Ellis A, Zicat BA. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:496–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. D’Antonio
    • 1
  • William N. Capello
    • 2
  • Marybeth Naughton
    • 3
  1. 1.Greater Pittsburgh Orthopaedics AssociationMoon TownshipUSA
  2. 2.Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Stryker OrthopaedicsMahwahUSA

Personalised recommendations