Abstract
At the present time, there is no bearing in total hip arthroplasty that a surgeon can present to a younger and/or more active patient as being the bearing that will necessarily last them a lifetime. This is the driver to offering alternative bearings (crosslinked polyethylene with either a CoCr or ceramic head, resurfacings, and ceramic-on-ceramic) to patients. Each of these bearings has pros and cons, and none has emerged as the clear victor in the ongoing debate.
Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings have been available for decades. Earlier generation CoC bearings did encounter problems with rare fractures, however, with a greater understanding and improvement in the material, the fracture incidence has been significantly reduced. However, what has emerged in the past few years is an increasing reporting of significant squeaking. The incidence of squeaking, reported in the literature in various series, has varied from less than 1% to over 20%, depending on the definition used.
The primary reasons that ceramic-on-ceramic is not truly the articulation of choice for younger patients are: 1) There is absolutely no evidence that this bearing has a lower revision rate. Data from the Australian joint registry actually shows that at 15 years it has a significantly increased rate of revision (7.2%) compared with using a highly crosslinked liner with either a ceramic (5.1%) or a CoCr (6.3%) head; 2) This bearing is by far the most costly bearing on the market. In 2017 with significant constraints on health care systems across the globe, this is a significant concern; 3) This bearing has unique complications including squeaking and both liner and head fracturing.
While ceramic-on-ceramic can be considered a viable alternative bearing in total hip arthroplasty, it can be in no way considered the articulation of longevity for the younger patient.
