BACKGROUND: Few large series of hard bearing surfaces have reported on reasons for early failure. A number of unique mechanisms of failure, including fracture, squeaking, and adverse tissue reactions, have been reported with these hard bearing surfaces. However, the incidence varies among the published studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To confirm the incidences, we identified the etiologies of early failures of hard-on-hard bearing surfaces for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 2907 THAs with hard-on-hard bearing surfaces implanted between 1996 and 2009; 1697 (58%) had ceramic-on-ceramic and 1210 (42%) had metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. We recorded bearing-related complications and compared them to nonspecific reasons for revision THA. The minimum followup of the ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal cohorts was 6 months (mean, 48 months; range, 6-97 months) and 24 months (mean, 60 months; range, 24-178 months), respectively. RESULTS: The overall revision rate for ceramic-on-ceramic THA was 2.2% (38 of 1697), with aseptic loosening accounting for 55% of revisions (femur or acetabulum). The bearing accounted for 13% of the revisions in the ceramic-on-ceramic THA cohort. The overall metal-on-metal revision rate was 5.4% (65 of 1210), 17 involving adverse tissue reactions related to the metal-on-metal bearing surface (17 of 1210, 1.4% of cases; 17 of 65, 26% of revisions). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-six percent of the revisions from metal-on-metal and 13% of ceramic-on ceramic were bearing related. The overall short- to medium-term revision rate was 2.2% and 5.4% for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal, respectively. The most common etiology of failure was loosening of the femoral or acetabular components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of level of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Few large series of hard bearing surfaces have reported on reasons for early failure. A number of unique mechanisms of failure, including fracture, squeaking, and adverse tissue reactions, have been reported with these hard bearing surfaces. However, the incidence varies among the published studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To confirm the incidences, we identified the etiologies of early failures of hard-on-hard bearing surfaces for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 2907 THAs with hard-on-hard bearing surfaces implanted between 1996 and 2009; 1697 (58%) had ceramic-on-ceramic and 1210 (42%) had metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. We recorded bearing-related complications and compared them to nonspecific reasons for revision THA. The minimum followup of the ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal cohorts was 6 months (mean, 48 months; range, 6-97 months) and 24 months (mean, 60 months; range, 24-178 months), respectively. RESULTS: The overall revision rate for ceramic-on-ceramic THA was 2.2% (38 of 1697), with aseptic loosening accounting for 55% of revisions (femur or acetabulum). The bearing accounted for 13% of the revisions in the ceramic-on-ceramic THA cohort. The overall metal-on-metal revision rate was 5.4% (65 of 1210), 17 involving adverse tissue reactions related to the metal-on-metal bearing surface (17 of 1210, 1.4% of cases; 17 of 65, 26% of revisions). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-six percent of the revisions from metal-on-metal and 13% of ceramic-on ceramic were bearing related. The overall short- to medium-term revision rate was 2.2% and 5.4% for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal, respectively. The most common etiology of failure was loosening of the femoral or acetabular components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of level of evidence.
Authors: William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Rama Ramakrishnan; Marybeth Naughton Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jacob M Elkins; Megan K O'Brien; Nicholas J Stroud; Douglas R Pedersen; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Peter M Lewis; Ali Al-Belooshi; Michael Olsen; Emil H Schemitch; James P Waddell Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: William T Long; Manish Dastane; Michael J Harris; Zhinian Wan; Lawrence D Dorr Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: James A Browne; C Dustin Bechtold; Daniel J Berry; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: George E Petsatodis; Pericles P Papadopoulos; Kyriakos A Papavasiliou; Ippokratis G Hatzokos; Filon G Agathangelidis; Anastasios G Christodoulou Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Daniel R P Neumann; Christoph Thaler; Wolfgang Hitzl; Monika Huber; Thomas Hofstädter; Ulrich Dorn Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: William G Hamilton; James P McAuley; Douglas A Dennis; Jeffrey A Murphy; Thomas J Blumenfeld; Joel Politi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-09-19 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Valery Yu Murylev; Pavel M Elizarov; Aleksei V Muzychenkov; Yaroslav A Rukin; Grigory A Kukovenko; Semen S Alekseev; Michail P Elizarov Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-08-11
Authors: Henri Migaud; Sophie Putman; Grégory Kern; Ronald Isida; Julien Girard; Nassima Ramdane; Christian P Delaunay; Moussa Hamadouche Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.176