Explanations for “bearing” noise in ceramic-on-ceramic hips (COC) included stripe-wear formation and loss of lubrication leading to higher friction. However clinical and retrieval studies have clearly documented stripe wear in patients that did not have squeaking. Seldom highlighted has been the risk of metal-on-metal or metal-on-ceramic impingement present in total hip arthroplasty (THA) with metal and ceramic cup designs. The limitation in THA positioning studies has been (i) reliance on 2-dimensional radiographic images and (ii) patients lying supine on the examination table, thus not imaged in squeaking positions. We collected eleven squeaking COC cases for an EOS 3D-imaging functional study. Hip positions were documented in each patient's functional ‘squeaking’ posture using standard and 3-D EOS images for sitting, rising from a chair, hip extension in striding, and single-legged stance. EOS imaging documented for the 1st time that postural dysfunctions with potential impingements were demonstrable for each squeaking case. The 1st major insight in this study came from a female patient who complained of squeaking while walking in flat-soled shoes (Figs. 1a, b). She found that when wearing high-heeled shoes her hip stopped squeaking (Figs. 1c, d). Her lateral EOS view in standing position with heeled shoes revealed that the femoral stem had approximately 3o less hyper-extension compared to flat shoes (Figs. 1b, d, arrows #1,3). The three-dimensional ‘sky-view’ EOS reconstruction of pelvis and femurs (Fig. 2) showed that her femur was also more internally rotated when she wore heels. These subtle shifts in position changed her COC hip from one of squeaking to non-squeaking. A squeaking male patient observed similar postural effects while walking up his boat ramp but not going down the ramp. In both cases, the squeaking was a consequence of cup impinging on a metal femoral neck. Thus the primary cause of squeaking appeared to be hip impingement, i.e. repetitive subluxations that patients generally were not aware of. Another case is representative of situations due to atypical and subtle cup/stem mal-adjustments (Fig. 3); frontal pelvic-tilt, thoracolumbar scoliosis, with 1cm of femur lengthening and a significant increase of offset are observed. Also evident was the femoral-neck retroversion in both standing and sitting. Squeaking occurred when modification of the functional neck orientation occured in one-legged stance (Fig. 3c) or when climbing a stair (Fig. 3d). It was apparent in our EOS studies that patient functionality controlled whether squeaking occurred or not. Thus the new data indicated COC squeaking was a three-fold consequence of component positioning, spine and pelvic adaptions, and variations in patient posture. One limitation here is that our conclusions are based on a small sample of patients and may not be applicable to all. A consequence of such repetitive impingement can be cup rim damage and neck-notching, with release of metal debris. It is well documented that retrieved ceramic bearings are frequently stained black. Thus hip squeaking may likely result from (i) impingement and secondarily (ii) due to ingress of metal particles, and then (iii) producing a failure of lubrication. To view tables/figures, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Acetabular cup orientation has been shown to be a factor in edge-loading of a ceramic-on-ceramic THR bearing. Currently all recommended guidelines for cup orientation are defined from static measurements with the patient positioned supine. The objectives of this study are to investigate functional cup orientation and the incidence of edge-loading in ceramic hips using commercially available, dynamic musculoskeletal modelling software that simulates each patient performing activities associated with edge-loading. Methodology. Eighteen patients with reproducible squeaking in their ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasties were recruited from a previous study investigating the incidence of noise in large-diameter ceramic bearings. All 18 patients had a Delta Motion acetabular component, with head sizes ranging from 40 – 48mm. All had a reproducible squeak during a deep flexion activity. A control group of thirty-six patients with Delta Motion bearings who had never experienced a squeak were recruited from the silent cohort of the same original study. They were matched to the squeaking group for implant type, acetabular cup orientation, ligament laxity, maximum hip flexion and BMI. All 54 patients were modelled performing two functional activities using the Optimized Ortho Postoperative Kinematics Simulation software. The software uses standard medical imaging to produce a patient-specific rigid body dynamics analysis of the subject performing a sit-to-stand task and a step-up with the contralateral leg, Fig 1. The software calculates the dynamic force at the replaced hip throughout the two activities and plots the bearing contact patch, using a Hertzian contact algorithm, as it traces across the articulating surface, Fig 2. As all the squeaking hips did so during deep flexion, the minimum posterior Contact Patch to Rim Distance (CPRD) can then be determined by calculating the smallest distance between the edge of the contact patch and the true rim of the ceramic liner, Fig 2. A negative posterior CPRD indicates posterior edge-loading. Results. The mean CPRD was significantly less in the squeaking group than the control group, −2.5mm and 2.9mm respectively, (p < 0.001), Fig 3. The mean pelvic tilt in the flexed seated position was 12.6° (range −13.5° to 30.3°) for the squeaking group and 5.1° (−9.8° to 26.4°) for the control group. Consequently, the mean functional cup anteversion at seat-off was significantly less in the squeaking group than the control group, 8.1° (−10.5° to 36.0°) and 21.1° (−1.9° to 38.4°) respectively (p < 0.001), Fig 3. There were 67% (12) of patients in the squeaking group that showed posterior edge-loading in the simulation compared to only 28% (10) in the control group that exhibited posterior edge-loading in the simulation. Conclusions. Acetabular cup orientation during activities associated with edge-loading are likely very different from those measured when supine. Patients with large anterior pelvic tilts during deep flexion activities might be more susceptible to posterior edge-loading and squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, as a consequence of a significant decrease in cup anteversion. If these patients can be identified preoperatively, cup orientation and bearing choice could be customised accordingly to accommodate these individual motion patterns

Introduction. Squeaking is a potential problem of all hard on hard bearings yet it has been less frequently reported in metal-on-metal hips. We compared a cohort of 11 squeaking metal-on-metal hip resurfacings to individually matched controls, assessing cup inclination and anteversion between the groups to look for any differences. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the patient records of 332 patients (387 hip resurfacings) who underwent hip resurfacing between December 1999 and Dec 2012. 11 hips in 11 patients were reported to squeak postoperatively. Each of these patients, except one, were matched by age, sex, BMI and implant to 3 controls. The final patient only had one control due to his high BMI. The latest post-operative radiographs of the squeaking group and controls were analysed using EBRA (Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analysis, University of Innsbruck, Austria) software to evaluate cup inclination and anteversion. Results. Post- operative audible squeaking occurred in 11 out of 387 hips (2.84%). The mean follow up of the squeaking group was 88.6 months (19–131 months). The mean time to squeak was 11.3 months (3–22 months). 8 (73%) patients were male, 10 (91%) patients had a Birmingham hip resurfacing and 9 (82%) patients had an operation on the left hip. The mean inclination angle of the cups in the squeaking group was 48.4° (43.9°–55.4°) compared to 50° (37.8° −63°) in the control group. The mean anteversion of the cups in the squeaking group was 17.1°(6.3°–25.7°) compared to 14.6° (4.3° −33.5°) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference between the cases and their controls for cup inclination (p = 0.36) or cup anteversion (p = 0.31). The mean head size in the squeaking group was smaller at 49.3 mm (46 mm-54 mm), compared to 51.4 mm (48 mm-54 mm) in the control group (p = 0.026). The mean cup size in the squeaking group was also smaller at 56.5 mm (54 mm-62 mm), compared to 57.9 mm (48 mm-60 mm) in the control group (p = 0.007). Overall, 4 (40%) male patients in the squeaking group had a head size less than 50 mm, compared to 0 (0%) in the control group. 3 (27%) patients with squeaking resurfacings underwent revision surgery. 1 (9%) at 72 month for a pseudotumour, 1 (9%) at 114 months for persistant squeaking and 1 (9%) at 117 months for a subtrochanteric fracture after a fall. Conclusions. No difference was found between the radiographic inclination or anteversion of squeaking metal-on-metal hip resurfacing cups compared to a control group. Male patients with squeaking hips were noted to have smaller head and cup sizes than their controls

INTRODUCTION. Squeaking after total hip replacement has been reported in up to 10% of patients. Some authors proposed that sound emissions from squeaking hips result from resonance of one or other or both of the metal parts and not the bearing surfaces. There is no reported in vitro study about the squeaking frequencies under lubricated regime. The goal of the study was to reproduce the squeaking in vitro under lubricated conditions, and to compare the in vitro frequencies to in vivo frequencies determined in a group of squeaking patients. The frequencies may help determining the responsible part of the noise. METHODS. Four patients, who underwent THR with a Ceramic-on-Ceramic THR (Trident(r), Stryker(r)) presented a squeaking noise. The noise was recorded and analysed with acoustic software (FMaster(r)). In-vitro 3 alumina ceramic (Biolox Forte Ceramtec(r)) 32 mm diameter (Ceramconcept(r)) components were tested using a PROSIM(r) hip friction simulator. The cup was positioned with a 75° abduction angle in order to achieve edge loading conditions. The backing and the cup liner were cut with a diamond saw, in order to avoid neck-head impingement and dislocation in case of high cup abduction angles (Figure1). The head was articulated ± 10° at 1 Hz with a load of 2.5kN for a duration of 300 cycles. The motion was along the edge. Tests were conducted under lubricated conditions with 25% bovine serum without and with the addition of a 3. rd. body alumina ceramic particle (200 μm thickness and 2 mm length). Before hand, engineering blue was used in order to analyze the contact area and to determine whether edge loading was achieved. RESULTS. Edge loading was obtained. In-vitro, no squeaking occurred under edge loading conditions. However, with the addition of an alumina ceramic 3. rd. body particle in the contact region squeaking was obtained at the beginning of the tests and stopped after ∼20 seconds (dominant frequency 2.6 kHz). In-vivo, recordings had a dominant frequency ranging between 2.2 and 2.4 kHz. DISCUSSION. For the first time, squeaking was reproduced in vitro under lubricated conditions. In-vitro noises followed edge loading and 3. rd. body particles and despite, the severe conditions, squeaking was intermittent and difficult to reproduce. However, squeaking is probably more difficult to reproduce because the cup was cut and the head was fixed in the simulator, preventing vibration to occur. Squeaking noises of a similar frequency were recorded in-vitro and in-vivo. The lower frequency of squeaking recorded in-vivo, demonstrates a potential damping effect of the soft tissues. Therefore, the squeaking in the patients was probably related to the bearing surfaces and modified lubrication conditions that may be due to edge loading. Varnum et al reported recently (3) that all the revised squeaking patients had a neck-cup impingement with metal 3. rd. body particles. These metallic wear particles may generate squeaking as shown in vitro. However, a larger cohort of squeaking patients is needed to confirm these results

The problem associated with ceramic on ceramic total hip replacement (THR) is audible noise. Squeaking is the most frequently documented sound. The incidence of squeaking has been reported to wide range from 0.7 to 20.9%. Nevertheless there is no study to investigate on incidence of noise in computer assisted THR with ceramic on ceramic bearing. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and risks factors associated with noise. We retrospectively reviewed 200 patients (202 hips) whom performed computer assisted THR (Orthopilot, B. Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) with ceramic on ceramic bearing between March 2009 and August 2012. All procedures underwent uncemented THR with posterior approach by single surgeon. All hips implanted with PLASMACUP and EXIA femoral stem (B. Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany). All cases used BIOLOX DELTA (Ceramtec, AG, Plochingen, Germany) ceramic liner and head. The incidence and type of noise were interviewed by telephone using set of questionnaire. Patient's age, weight, height, body mass index, acetabular cup size, femoral offset size determined from medical record for comparing between silent hips and noisy hips. The acetabular inclination angle, acetabular anteversion angle, femoral offset, hip offset were reviewed to compare difference between silent hips and noisy hips. The audible noise was reported for 13 hips (6.44%). 5 patients (5 hips) reported click (2.47%) and 8 patients (8 hips) squeaked (3.97%). The mean time to first occurrence of click was 13.4 months and squeak was 7.4 months after surgery. Most common frequency of click was less than weekly (60%) and squeak was 1–4 times per week (50%). Most common activity associated with noise was bending; 40% in click and 75% in squeaking. No patients complained for pain or social problem. Moreover, no patient underwent any intervention for the noise. The noise had not self-resolved in any of the patients at last follow up. Age, weight, height and BMI showed no statistically significant difference between silent hips and click hips. In addition, there was also same result between silent hips and squeaking hips. Acetabular cup insert size and femoral offset stem size the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between silent hips and click hips, also with squeaking hips. Acetabular inclination, angle acetabular anteversion angle, femoral offset, hip offset the results shown that only acetabular anteversion angle differed significantly between silent hips (19.94±7.78 degree) and squeaking hips (13.46±5.54 degree). The results can conclude that incidence of noise after ceramic on ceramic THR with navigation was 6.44 %. Squeaking incidence was 3.97% and click incidence was 2.47%. The only associated squeaking risk factor was cup anteversion angle. In this study, squeaking hip had cup anteversion angle significant less than silent hip

The use of hard-on-hard bearings, including ceramics peaked in the mid 2000's and has seen rapid decline since that time. Ceramics are not new to the market place but have had a 40 year history outside the U.S. The basis for renewed enthusiasm for ceramics included improved manufacturing, improved taper tolerances, higher strength, and lower wear. In spite of the major improvements concerns have been expressed with new generation ceramics by the experts and thought leaders in the field. The major concerns included complications related to modularity, continued problems with fracture and consequences of fracture, limited surgical options, and squeaking and impingement. The conclusion of one review article was that “although ceramics show promise as a lower wear articulation, manufacturing and design modifications and improvements will continue in an attempt to address the substantial concerns that persist”. Modifications have indeed occurred. The question is rather all of these concerns have been addressed and the answer is no. One proposed solution was a hybrid material of Alumina and Zirconia (Delta Ceramic). The advantages included higher strength, lower wear, more options and possibly less squeaking. Unfortunately the modest material improvements did not begin to overcome the obstacles to adopting this technology. High on this list is the problem with cost with the current health care environment unwilling to pay for expensive new technology that does not have proven value. A 2nd major issue is new technology must account for variability in surgeon performance in maximising margin for error. The medical legal environment is unforgiving of failure of new unproven options. Most of the old issues with ceramics have not been completely resolved. Delta Ceramic in particular, has increased cost with no demonstrated benefit. A major problem is there is no known problem with metal or ceramic against cross-linked polyethylene bearing in terms of wear or osteolysis in the 10–15 year time frame. Among all the bearing articulations, metal-on-cross-linked performs the best. The persistent vexing problems with ceramics include impingement, liner breakage, and squeaking. Ceramic components do not tolerate component malposition which increases wear and squeaking. The problem is that a substantial percentage of hip replacements are put in outside of the ideal radiographic zone even at specialty centers. Breakage continues to be a problem especially with liners. There is also a need for complete rim exposure for concentric placement with impaction of liners which makes ceramics less compatible with small incision surgery. The problem of squeaking has not been solved by Delta Ceramic. Originally a case report appeared in the literature of squeaking with Delta Ceramic. Since that time a large scale study has showed that only 69% of Delta Ceramic hips were silent with up to 13% being associated with reproducible squeaking. While a new generation of ceramics are better than the earlier generation and have lowered the fracture risk and increased intraoperative options, the current generation ceramics still provide far fewer options than a standard metal-on-cross-linked total hip. The current generation metal-on-cross-linked total hips have 10–15 year results that cannot be improved upon in terms of wear and osteolysis. Other unsolved problems include breaking, chipping and squeaking. Ceramic-on-ceramic is less tolerant of suboptimal position which leads to impingement, edge loading, and an increased incidence of squeaking. Until all of these problems are successfully addressed, ceramic-on-ceramic cannot be advocated for widespread use

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

Polyimide (MP-1, MMATech, Haifa, Israel), is a high performance aerospace thermoplastic used for its lubricity, stability, inertness and radiation resistance. A wear resistant thin robust bearing is needed for total hip arthroplasty (THR). After independent laboratory testing, in 2006, the author used the material as a bearing in two Reflection (Smith and Nephew, USA) hip surgeries. The first, a revision for polyethylene wear, survives with no evidence of wear, noise, new osteolysis or complications related to the MP-1 bearing after 16 yrs. The second donated his asymptomatic MP-1 hip at 6.5yrs for post-mortem examination. There were no osteoclasts, cellular reaction bland in contrast to that of polyethylene. In 2013 a clinical study with ethical committee approval was started using a Biolox Delta (Ceramtec, Germany) head against a polyimide liner in 97 patients. MMATech sold all liners, irradiated: steam 52:45. Sixteen were re-machined in New Zealand. Acetabular shells were Delta PF (LIMA, Italy). The liner locked by taper. The cohort consisted of 46:51 M:F, and ages 43 to 85, mean 65. Ten received cemented stems. For contralateral surgery, a ceramic or polyethylene liner was used. Initial patients were lower demand, later, more active patients, mountain-biking and running. All patients have on-going follow up, including MP-1 liner revision cases. There has been no measurable wear, or osteolysis around the acetabular components using weight-bearing radiographs. Squeaking within the first 6 weeks was noted in 39 number of cases and subtle increase in palpable friction, (passive rotation at 50 degrees flexion), but then disappeared. There were 6 revisions, four of which were related to cementless Stemsys implants (Evolutis, Italy) fixed distally with proximal linear lucencies in Gruen zones 1 and 7, and 2 and 6. No shells were revised and MP-1 liners were routinely changed to ceramic or polyethylene. The liners showed no head contact at the apex, with highly polished contact areas. There were no deep or superficial infections, but one traumatic anterior dislocation at 7 years associated with 5 mm subsidence of a non-collared stem. The initial squeaking and increased friction was due to the engineering of the liner / shell composite as implanted, not allowing adequate clearance for fluid film lubrication and contributed to by shell distortion during impaction. The revised bearings were “equatorial” rather than polar, and with lack of wear or creep this never fully resolved. Where the clearance was better, function was normal. The “slow” utilization was due to my ongoing concern with clearances not being correct. The revision of 4 Stemsys stems, tribology issues may have contributed, but non “MP-1” / Stemsys combinations outside this study have shown the same response, thought to be due to de-bonding of the hydroxyapatite coating. With correct engineering and clearances, a 3.6 mm thick MP-1 bearing, a surface Ra<0.5, steam sterilized, shows no appreciable wear, and with confidence, can be used as a high performance THR bearing

Introduction. The Delta Motion device (developed by Finsbury Orthopaedics, Leatherhead, United Kingdom, now manufactured by DePuy, Leeds, United Kingdom) is a pre-assembled factory fitted cup. It has been introduced to overcome some of the concerns relating to intra-operative assembly with improper seating of the liner and chipping. This device has a thinner shell and liner in comparison with other cups, allowing the use of larger sized heads which should help reduce the risk of impingement and dislocation. A drawback of the pre-assembled design is the inability to use supplementary screws to achieve stability and the difficulty in obtaining primary stability compared with a thin titanium shell. To date we are not aware of any publications reviewing the outcomes of these devices. Methods. 206 DeltaMotion cups were implanted in 195 patients, between Dec 2008 to Dec 2009 by the three senior authors. All the hips had the same stem (Osteonics) and a ceramic head was used. Data was prospectively collected and we reflect on our two year results. Results. A total of 206 cups (123 F: 83 M) were implanted in 195 patients. The mean age at implantation was 69 years (range 38–93). 11 patients had bilateral hips (6M:5F). Complications were 1 pulmonary embolism, 2 femoral stem subsidence, 1 dislocation, 2 femoral fractures, 13 squeaking hips (9F:4M). The squeaking hips had a mean age of 65 years. Discussion. The main complication was ‘benign’ squeaking. This was more common in younger (mean age 64 years) females. This cohort has a squeaking rate of 6.3% which is higher than 3.1% previously reported by our unit. There was no squeaking when 36 mm heads were used. The risk of squeaking dramatically increased when cup sizes 60 mm and above were used with 48 mm heads. Although squeaking seems to have increased with this device, none of the patients required revision

Hip arthroplasty surgeons have various bearing choices to make on behalf of their patients. We make those choices based on our knowledge of pre-clinical wear testing data and the outcome of clinical and radiological follow-up studies. The initial use of conventional polyethylene revealed limitations in its use in younger patients. Modern highly crosslinked polyethylene is a vastly improved bearing surface that means less wear and its consequences. Despite this, registry data still suggests that loosening, lysis and dislocation are problematic causes of implant failure. The functional success of hip replacement surgery, the ageing population and younger patients requesting arthroplasty means we should predict ongoing issues consequent to wear related events even with the newer polyethylenes. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings surfaces have a long history of successful clinical use. The benefits of ceramic bearings are its superior wear characteristics, the minimal biological response to the ceramic wear products and the ability of ceramics to be offered in larger head sizes. Its limitations have been reports of fracture and squeaking. Fourth generation ceramic articulations have reduced the fracture incidence. Squeaking has been reported to occur in 3% to 20% in different series but revision for squeaking is extremely, low suggesting it is not a significant clinical problem. Edge loading occurs in most hip articulations and is thought to be the primary mechanism in the squeaking event. Modern methodologies of “functional” implant orientation may reduce the incidence of squeaking. While wear and its consequences remain significant issues in hip arthroplasty, the future will require a bearing with reduced wear and biologically inert wear products. This bearing exists already. “The future is now”

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

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings provide a solution to the osteolysis seen with traditional metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Sporadic reports of ceramic breakage and squeaking concern some surgeons and this bearing combination can show in vivo signs of edge loading wear which was not predicted from in vitro studies. Taper damage or debris in the taper between the ceramic and metal may lead to breakage of either a ceramic head or insert. Fastidious surgical technique may help to minimise the risk of ceramic breakage. Squeaking is usually a benign complication, most frequently occurring when the hip is fully flexed. Rarely, it can occur with each step of walking when it can be sufficiently troublesome to require revision surgery. The etiology of squeaking is multifactorial in origin. Taller, heavier and younger patients with higher activity levels are more prone to hips that squeak. Cup version and inclination are also relevant factors. Osteolysis following metal-on-UHMW polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is well reported. Earlier generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearings did produce some osteolysis, but in flawed implants. As third and now fourth generation ceramic THAs come into mid- and long-term service, the orthopaedic community has begun to see reports of high survival rates and very low incidence of osteolysis in these bearings. The technique used by radiologists for identifying the nature of lesions on Computed Tomography (CT) scan is the Hounsfield score which will identify the density of the tissue within the lucent area. Commonly the radiologist will have no access to previous imaging, especially pre-operative imaging if a long time has elapsed. With such a low incidence of osteolysis in this patient group, what, then, should a surgeon do on receiving a CT report on a ceramic-on-ceramic THA, which states there is osteolysis? This retrospective review aims to determine the accuracy of CT in identifying true osteolysis in a cohort of long-term third generation ceramic-on-ceramic uncemented hip arthroplasties in our department. Pelvic CT scans were performed on the first 27 patients from a cohort of 301 patients undergoing 15-year review with third generation alumina-alumina cementless THAs. The average follow-up was 15 years (15–17). The CT scans were reviewed against pre-operative and post-operative radiographs and reviewed by a second musculoskeletal specialist radiologist. Eleven of the CT scans were reported to show acetabular osteolysis, two reported osteolysis or a possible pre-existing cyst and one reported a definitive pre-existing cyst. After review of previous imaging including pre-operative radiographs, eleven of the thirteen patients initially reported to have osteolysis were found to have pre-existing cysts or geodes in the same size and position as the reported osteolysis, and a further patient had spot-welds with stress-shielding. One patient with evidence of true osteolysis awaits aspiration or biopsy to determine if he has evidence of ceramic wear or metallosis. Reports of osteolysis on CT should be interpreted with care in modern ceramic-on-ceramic THA to prevent unnecessary revision. Further imaging and investigations may be necessary to exclude other conditions such as geodes, or stress shielding which are frequently confused with osteolysis on CT scans

Young patients have been reported to have a higher risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty than older cohorts. This was attributed to the higher activity level which led to increased wear, osteolysis, and component fracture. We prospectively assessed the clinical results, wear and osteolysis, the incidence of squeaking, and the survivorship of ceramic on ceramic THA in patients younger than 50 years (mean age of 42 [18–50] years). The series included 425 THAs in 370 patients with 368 hips followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean 7.1 years, range 2–14 years). All patients received uncemented acetabular components with flush-mounted acetabular liners using an 18 degree taper. No osteolysis was observed in any uncemented construct. There was osteolysis around one loose cemented femoral component. The survivorship for reoperation for implant revision was 96.7%. There were only two acetabular liner fractures (0.47%) and one femoral head fracture (0.24%). Two of the three fractures involved a fall from a significant height. There were no hip dislocations. Five patients (1.17%) noted rare or occasional squeaking. None had reproducible squeaking. In summary, the current study shows that ceramic-on-ceramic THAs in the young patient population are extremely reliable with a very low revision rate and an absence of wear-induced osteolysis. In addition, it shows that both bearing fracture in this young patient population typically occurs with polytrauma and squeaking issues that have been raised relative to ceramic bearings occur very rarely with the flush-mounted ceramic liner design used in this study

Squeaking ceramics bearing surfaces have been recently recognised as a problem in total hip arthroplasty. The position of the acetabular cup has been alluded to as a potential cause of the squeaking, along with particular combinations of primary stems and acetabular cups. This study has used the finite element method to investigate the propensity of a new large diameter preassembled ceramic acetabular cup to squeaking due to malpositioning. A verified three-dimensional FE model of a cadaveric human pelvis was developed which had been CT scanned, and the geometry reconstructed; this was to be used to determine the behaviour of large diameter acetabular cup system with a thin delta ceramic liner in the acetabulum. The model was generated using ABAQUS CAE pre-processing software. The bone model incorporated both the geometry and the materials properties of the bone throughout based on the CT scan. Finite element analysis and bone material assignment was performed using ABAQUS software and a FORTRAN user subroutine. The loading applied simulated edge loading for rising from a chair, heel-strike, toe off and stumbling. All results of the analysis were used to determine if the liner separated from the shell and if the liner was toggling out of the shell. The results were also examined to see if there was a propensity for the liner to demobilise and vibrate causing a squeaking sound under the prescribed loading regime. This study indicates that there is a reduction in contact area between the ceramic liner and titanium shell if a patient happens to trip or stumble. However, since the contact between the liner and the shell is not completely lost the propensity for it to squeak is highly unlikely

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings provide a solution to the osteolysis seen with traditional metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Sporadic reports of ceramic breakage and squeaking concern some surgeons and this bearing combination can show in vivo signs of edge loading wear which was not predicted from in vitro studies. Taper damage or debris in the taper between the ceramic and metal may lead to breakage of either a ceramic head or insert. Fastidious surgical technique may help to minimise the risk of ceramic breakage. Squeaking is usually a benign complication, most frequently occurring when the hip is fully flexed. Rarely, it can occur with each step of walking when it can be sufficiently troublesome to require revision surgery. The etiology of squeaking is multifactorial origin. Taller, heavier and younger patients with higher activity levels are more prone to hips that squeak. Cup version and inclination are also relevant factors. Fifty-five ceramic bearings revised at our center were collected over 12 years. Median time to revision was 2.7 years. Forty-six (84%) cases had edge loading wear. The median femoral head wear volume overall was 0.2mm. 3. /yr, for anterosuperior edge loading was 2.0mm. 3. /yr, and the median volumetric wear rate for posterior edge loading was 0.15mm. 3. /yr (p=0.005). Osteolysis following metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well reported. Earlier generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearings did produce some osteolysis, but in flawed implants. As 3rd and now 4th generation ceramic THAs come into mid- and long-term service, the orthopaedic community has begun to see reports of high survival rates and very low incidence of osteolysis in these bearings. The technique used by radiologists for identifying the nature of lesions on Computed Tomography (CT) scan is the Hounsfield score which will identify the density of the tissue within the lucent area. Commonly the radiologist will have no access to previous imaging, especially pre-operative imaging if a long time has elapsed. With such a low incidence of osteolysis in this patient group, what, then, should a surgeon do on receiving a CT report on a ceramic-on-ceramic THA, which states there is osteolysis? This retrospective review aims to determine the accuracy of CT in identifying true osteolysis in a cohort of long-term 3rd generation ceramic-on-ceramic uncemented hip arthroplasties in our department. Methods. Pelvic CT scans were performed on the first 27 patients from a cohort of 301 patients undergoing 15-year review with 3rd generation alumina-alumina cementless THAs. The average follow-up was 15 years (15–17). The CT scans were reviewed against pre-operative and post-operative radiographs and reviewed by a second musculoskeletal specialist radiologist. Results. Eleven of the CT scans were reported to show acetabular osteolysis, two reported osteolysis or possible pre-existing cyst and one reported a definitive pre-existing cyst. After review of previous imaging including pre-operative radiographs, eleven of the thirteen patients initially reported to have osteolysis were found to have pre-existing cysts or geodes in the same size and position as the reported osteolysis, and a further patient had spot-welds with stress-shielding. One patient with evidence of true osteolysis awaits aspiration or biopsy to determine if he has evidence of ceramic wear or metallosis. Conclusions. Reports of osteolysis on CT should be interpreted with care in modern ceramic-on-ceramic THA to prevent unnecessary revision. Further imaging and investigations may be necessary to exclude other conditions such as geodes, or stress shielding which are frequently confused with osteolysis on CT scans

Background. Theoretically, improved material properties of new alumina matrix composite (AMC) material, Delta ceramics, are expected to decrease concerns associated with pure alumina ceramics and allow manufacturing thinner liners and consequent larger heads. However, limited short-term clinical results are available and mid-term results of these effects are unclear. Questions/Purposes. (1) Does AMC material decrease the rate of ceramic fracture and noise, concerns of previous-generation ceramics, following change of material properties? (2) Does the possible use of larger heads consequent to manufacturing thinner liners decrease dislocation rate and affect inguinal pain? (3) Do any other complications associated with the use of AMC ceramics occur?. Materials and Methods. One-hundred cementless primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) using AMC ceramic bearings were performed consecutively by single surgeon. The mean follow-up period was 5.4 years (range, 5.0 to 5.7) and average age at the time of arthroplasty was 54.7 years. Prostheses with identical design and Biolox® Delta ceramics were used in all patients. Clinical evaluation included the occurrence of inguinal pain and noise which was classified into squeaking, clicking, grinding and popping. Ceramic fracture, dislocation and any other complications associated with the use of AMC ceramics were also investigated. Result. No ceramic fracture occurred and noise was reported in three patients (3.2%); three subjective clicking, but no squeaking. Single event of perioperative dislocation due to incompliance occurred in one hip (1.1%) and inguinal pain was reported in two hips (2.1 %); neither evidence of iliopsoas tendinitis on ultrasonography, nor association with ceramic head size (p>0.05). Liner dissociation following initial square seating was shown immediately after surgery in one hip (1.1%) and underwent revision THA. Conclusion. Improved material properties combined with the possible use of larger-diameter head make AMC ceramics a promising alternative bearing option with reduced risk of ceramic fracture, squeaking and dislocation. In spite of these encouraging results, however, meticulous technical precautions such as square seating and proper impaction in particular, should be taken during whole process of liner insertion

The leading cause for total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision remains aseptic loosening due to bearing wear. The younger and more active patients currently undergoing arthroplasty present unprecedented demands on THA-bearings. Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings have consistently shown the lowest wear rates. The recent advances, especially in alumina CoC bearings, have solved many past problems and produced preferable results in vitro. Alumina ceramics are extremely hard, scratch resistant, biocompatible, offer a low coefficient of friction, superior lubrication and lower wear rates in comparison to other bearings in THA. The major disadvantage of ceramics used to be fracture. The new generation of alumina ceramics, has reduced the risk of ball fracture to 0.03–0.05%. The risk for liner fracture is even lower. Assuming an impingement-free component implantation, CoC bearings have major advantages over other bearing combinations. Due to the superior hardness, CoC bearings produce less third body wear and are virtually impervious to damage from instruments during the implantation process. A complication specific to CoC bearings is squeaking. Squeaking occurs if the friction in the joint articulation is sufficient to excite vibrations to audible magnitudes (due to loss of lubrication). The high range of reported squeaking (0.45% to 10.7%) highlights the importance of correct implant position. If a correct implant position can be guaranteed, then squeaking is rare and without clinical significance. The improved tribology and presumable resulting implant longevity make CoC the bearing of choice for young and active patients. Especially the alumina matrix (Biolox delta) offers increased burst strength and greater fracture toughness

There are pros and cons of all bearing surface options for our young patients. I pick the bearing surface for my young patients trying to maximise durability and minimise risks. For the ultra-young, ≤30 years of age patient, I use ceramic-on-ceramic. The pros of this are the best wear couple available and a favorable track record (with well designed implants). The risks can be minimised: fracture risk now decreased, runaway wear minimised with good surgical technique, impingement problems minimised with good technique and well designed implants, as well as squeaking is minimised with good design (majority of reported squeakers are of one designed socket). I don't use metal-on-metal because I am not willing to subject young patients to potentially 50+ years of high metal ion exposure. I also don't use HCLPE. This would be okay from a biologic standpoint but I still have concerns about long-term wear durability. So the marked superior wear characteristics of ceramic-ceramic win in my view. For my middle age patients, 30–60, I use HCLPE I don't use ceramic-ceramic because at some point between 30 and 60 years of age the improved wear properties are outweighed by their potential risks (fracture, impingement, squeak). HCLPE at short F/U (<15 years) appears to be durable, reliable with good wear properties so it is a reasonable choice. Using a ceramic head versus CoCr provides minimal improvement in wear properties in the lab but no marked advantage in vivo. Concerns persist about cobalt-chrome corrosion so I use ceramic heads in the majority of patients. For patients under age 60 the wear characteristics of HCLPE appear very favorable and one doesn't assume other risks seen in with metal-on-metal and ceramic-ceramic. Little justification for a hard-on-hard bearing in this patient subgroup. I use ceramic heads in majority to avoid corrosion issues

Introduction. Long term results of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) are affected by wear of articulation. Ceramic on ceramic articulation have been used especially for young patients because of its low wear and bio-inert property. However, because of its hardness, it is concerned that ceramic fracture, chipping, or squeaking might happen with ceramic on ceramic articulation. Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate over 10-years clinical and radiographic results of ceramic bearing cementless THA. Methods. Evaluation was performed in 60 patients (68 joints) who underwent primary cementless THA from May 2003 to April 2007. Mean age at surgery was 59 years. Mean follow up period was 11.2 years. Forty-nine patients were female. Mean BMI at surgery was 24.0 kg/m. 2. Fifty-one patients had osteoarthrosis, 6 patients had osteonecrosis, 2 patients had rheumatoid arthraitis, and 1 patient had PSS. A 28mm-size femoral head was used in all patients. Clinical evaluation was performed with Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Score (JOA score). Radiographic results were evaluated with standard bilateral hip radiograph in supine position. Results. Mean clinical score at surgery was 45 (pain: 13/40, ROM: 12/20, gait: 9/20, ADL: 12/20). Mean clinical score at final follow up was 92 (pain: 39/40, ROM: 17/20, gait: 17/20, ADL: 18/20). Pain score was dramatically improved from 13 to 39 (maximum pain score: 40). One stem was revised because of recurrent dislocation. Two other patients experienced one time dislocation during follow up. One stem showed 5mm of subsidence. ALL cups and stems showed bone ingrowth at final follow up. Cortical hypertrophy was seen in 17 joints. However, there was no patient complained thigh pain. Stress shielding was seen in 55 joints (81%). First, second and third degree of stress shielding were seen in 12, 40, and 3 joints, respectively. Most of the female patients who had surgery at the age over 60 years showed second and third degree of stress shielding. There was no measurable wear. No osteolysis was found around the implants. There were no ceramic fracture, chipping, and squeaking. Conclusion. This study demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic results of ceramic bearing cementless THA. Excellent long term results will be expected with this system

While total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been shown successful at relieving pain and improving function in patients with coxarthrosis, wear and instability remain leading causes for revision surgery. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXPE) has significantly reduced wear and osteolysis but volumetric wear associated with the use of larger diameter ball heads may be an issue in the long-term. Finally, concerns with femoral taper corrosion have increased the utilization of ceramic ball heads in recent years. Ceramic on ceramic articulations are optimised for both minimizing implant wear and instability. It is biocompatible, wettable, and possesses the lowest in vitro and in vivo wear rates among all bearing couples. In fact, wear rates are lowest when the ceramic ball head size is maximised. Additionally, modern ceramic on ceramic THA designs have had an excellent clinical track record with low rates of loosening, failure, and no reports of osteolysis in even highly active, young patients. Concerns with ceramics center around issues related to fracture risk, squeaking, and cost. While the phenomenon of squeaking remains poorly understood, the reliability of ceramic implants have steadily improved with better materials, design, and manufacturing. The fracture risk for modern pure alumina implants and the newer alumina matrix composite ceramics are 1 in 5000 and 1 in 100,000, respectively. The advantages of ceramic on ceramic THAs will not be realised on every patient and therefore, should be selectively used. However, with expected increases in life expectancy and more young, active patients undergoing THA, ceramic on ceramic THA should be strongly considered in patients under age 60 years