Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture.

Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene).

366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture.

There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address.

There is ongoing debate on the benefits of fixed versus mobile bearing Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR). We report the results from a randomised controlled trial comparing fixed and mobile bearing of the same UKR prosthesis. Forty patients were randomized to receive identical femoral components and either a fixed or mobile bearing tibial component. At 6.5 years follow-up 37% of the mobile bearing design had been revised and 14% for the fixed bearing design. The main reasons for revision were pain and loosening. These results were compared with data from The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) that show a cumulative percent revision of 24.2% for the mobile bearing Preservation UKR at 6.5 years. All locally explanted mobile bearings were examined microscopically, and 83% demonstrated significant backside wear. Constraint on the undersurface of the bearing coupled with a congruent upper surface may have contributed to the excessive revision rate. This is the first randomised controlled trial examining mobile and fixed variations of the same UKR prosthesis and shows this design of UKR with the mobile bearing has an unacceptably high revision rate and patients with this knee design should be closely monitored.