Ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) bearings have traditionally been reserved for younger patients that were at high risk of polyethylene wear requiring revision. With the 1999 advent of highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLP), wear with XLP has not been a cause for revision. Simulator studies have not shown a difference in wear comparing COP to metal-on-polyethylene (MOP). Therefore, and considering the additional cost of COP, we have until recently not needed COP. However, a 2012 report of 10 cases that developed an adverse reaction to metal debris generated by head neck corrosion has resulted in COP becoming the most common bearing surface as reported by the American Joint Replacement Registry. This reactionary change has occurred despite the fact that we do not understand the cause, do not know the frequency, if it is more common in some implants than others, and we do not know the additional cost or markup of ceramic heads. One study reported a 3.2% revision prevalence caused by mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC) at the head neck junction of a single manufacturer's implant. Other studies have estimated the frequency to be less than 5%. COST IS THE CONCERN in a value based healthcare environment. Models for and against the wholesale use of COP have been proposed and are based on variables that are unknown, including estimated frequency of the problem and the incrementally higher cost of a ceramic head. I use COP in younger patients that I believe will use their hip for more than 15 years. This is based on my personal experience. I have prospectively followed a series of MOP patients for 5 years and not seen cobalt elevations. I have placed new metal femoral heads on corroded femoral tapers without subsequent failure. I have evaluated the taper junctions of postmortem retrievals and found them virtually free of corrosion. A query of our institutional database for MOP primary hips identified 3012 cases between 2006–2017. Eighty revisions (2.7%) were identified. 2 of the 80 were for MACC representing 2.5% of revisions done on our own patients and 0.07% of our MOP cases. Further, evaluating our most recent all cause 350 revisions (7/2015–10/2017) there were 3 revisions for MACC (0.9%). Each one of us needs to EVALUATE OUR OWN PRACTICE AND MAKE AN EDUCATED, VALUE BASED DECISION whether or not to use COP in all patients

Do we need new polyethylene? Is there a clinical problem with first generation crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE)? Are we being duped into believing that doped polyethylene will solve a problem?. Clinical failures of polyethylene bearing total hip replacements are related to wear and the mechanical properties of the polyethylene. Wear is primarily related to crosslinking. Wear failures are secondary to periprosthetic osteolysis while mechanical failure causes cracking of thin polyethylene. Use of large femoral heads that reduce dislocation may increase wear and mechanical failure in the second decade of XLPE use. There is no question that XLPE has reduced 2-dimensional (2D) head penetration, volumetric penetration and periprosthetic osteolysis with traditional 28 mm head sizes. Reported 2D penetration rates are 0.03–0.07 mm/year and clinically important polyethylene wear induced osteolysis is nonexistent. However, larger heads with the same 2D head penetration will generate more volumetric debris and could cause osteolysis. There is no question that retrieved XLPE components have low levels of oxidation at the time of explant. While this is unexpected, the levels are well below levels reported with traditional polyethylene. It remains to be seen if these levels of oxidation will cause mechanical failures. Currently available versions of polyethylene have focused on eliminating oxidation induced mechanical property reduction and not additional wear reduction. This is accomplished with Vitamin E doping or blending. While the local effects of Vitamin E polyethylene particles at the cellular level have been studied the clinical effect of these chemically new particles remains to be seen. This author believes that long term volumetric wear with large head size is a greater concern than reduced mechanical properties secondary to in-vivo oxidation. New polyethylene development needs to focus on additional wear reduction. Can we afford to pay more for a new polyethylene in a value based healthcare environment?