Abstract
Head sizes used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased drastically from the original 22mm used by Charnley. This is due to two factors: the use of hard-on-hard materials for the bearing articulation and the increasing problem of dislocation.
The tribological aspect
Hard-on-hard materials enable mixed or fluid film lubrication due to their good wettability. The development of a fluid film layer is encouraged by smaller surface pressures (larger area) and higher velocity at the articulating interface (larger radius), suggesting that larger diameters exhibit better lubrication and such less wear. This was effectivly proven in pre-clinical simulator studies and used as argument to increase the diameters of metal-on-metall and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. Clinically the tribological advantage of larger diameters has not yet been shown. For hard-on-soft bearings the situation is different. Due to the bad wettability of Polyethylene (PE), the abrasive wear regime is dominant. This means that the longer wear path of a larger diameter will inevitably carry a larger amount of wear debris. Despite this relation, the heads used in combination with PE were also increased up to 40mm diameter, justified by the overall greatly reduced wear amount of the new generation(s) of cross-linked PE and favourable simulator results. First in-vivo studies have shown that larger heads carry larger amounts of wear particles. Whether this increase is relevant with respect to osteolysis is still unclear and will have to be shown in longer term studies.
The biomechanical aspect
Larger heads require a larger “jumping” distance until they dislocate. Consequently the use of larger heads reduces dislocation rates, which was shown in multiple clinical studies. However, the reduction in dislocation rate achieved by increasing diameters varies greatly. Some centres achieve dislocation rates below 1% with 28mm heads, other centres require 36mm heads to achieve the same result. No study shows any further advantage with head diameters larger than 36mm. Despite their obvious biomechanical advantage with regard to stability, larger heads also have large disadvantages. Larger heads carry inevitably larger friction moments, requiring better anchoring of the components. In unfavourable conditions (start-up, break-down of lubrication film), friction moments of hard-on-hard bearings can get very high and reach or even exceed the losening torque of the head on the taper. Depending on the head impaction foce during assembly, the loosening torques amount to 8 to 17Nm. Movement at the head-taper connection possibly causes wear and increased corrosion at this interface. Larger head diameters also require thinner shells and/or liners, leading to problems with liner chipping or incomplete seating. Large head diameters have also lead to the use of sub-hemispherical cups with reduced covering surface, increasing the risk of fluid film break down due to edge loading if not well positioned. Finally, larger heads might give the surgeon a wrong feeling of security regarding a sub-optimal positioned cup.
The question regarding “the optimal” head diameter is open for discussion and needs to consider the bearing material used. Head size should be limited to a reasonable compromise, which based on the information currently available, could be 36mm. Join the “36 and under” club.
