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

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

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

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

Introduction

Increasing numbers and incidence rates of noisy (squeaking, scratching or clicking) ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip arthroplasties (THA) are being reported. The etiology seems to always involve stripe wear producing a stick-slip effect in the bearing which excites vibrations. As stripe wear is also found in silent CoC bearings, a theory has been developed that the vibrations become audible only via amplification through the vibrating stem. This was supported by showing that the excitation frequency and the resonance frequency of the plain stem are similar [1]. However, stem resonance in-vivo would be influenced by the periprosthetic bone damping and transmitting stem vibrations. Thus, if stem resonance is conditional for noisy COC hips, these should show periprosthetic bone different to silent hips.

This study compares stem fit&fill and periprosthetic bone between noisy and silent CoC hips.

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.

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

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

Intentionally crosslinked polyethylene has improved the survivorship of total hip replacement and is the current standard bearing material for total hip arthroplasty. Regardless of the manufacturing method and counter-surface, the wear rates have been reduced on the order of 90% compared to historical materials, with a substantial reduction in the occurrence of osteolysis. Squeaking is not an issue. The wear of crosslinked polyethylene bearings has not shown the position sensitivity of hard-on-hard bearings. Liner fracture and dissociation have been reported, most commonly in association with malposition, and their occurrence has been decreased by improved modularity. Further, the consequences of a fractured polymeric bearing are substantially less than those of a fractured ceramic bearing. In most markets, there is a cost-differential favoring crosslinked polyethylene. A clinical advantage of ceramic-ceramic must be demonstrated, not theorised, before declaring it to be the new standard

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

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”

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

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

Malorientation of the acetabular cup in Total Hip replacement (THR) may contribute to premature failure of the joint through instability (impingement, subluxation or dislocation), runaway wear in metal-metal bearings when the edge of the contact patch encroaches on the edge of the bearing surface, squeaking of ceramic-ceramic bearings and excess wear of polyethylene bearing surfaces leading to osteolysis. However as component malorientation often only occurs in functional positions it has been difficult to demonstrate and often is unremarkable on standard (usually supine) pelvic radiographs. The effects of spinal pathology as well as hip pathology can cause large rotations of the pelvis in the sagittal plane, again usually not recognized on standard pelvic views. While Posterior pelvic rotation with sitting increases the functional arc of the hip and is protective of a THR in regards to both edge loading and risk of dislocation, conversely Anterior rotation with sitting is potentially hazardous. We developed a protocol using three functional positions – standing, supine and flexed seated (posture at “seat-off” from a standard chair). Lateral radiographs were used to define the pelvic tilt in the standing and flexed seated positions. Pelvic tilt was defined as the angle between a vertical reference line and the anterior pelvic plane. Supine pelvic tilt was measured from computed tomography. Proprietary software (Optimized Ortho, Sydney) based on Rigid Body Dynamics then modelled the patients’ dynamics through their functional range producing a patient-specific simulation which also calculates the magnitude and direction of the dynamic force at the hip and traces the contact area between prosthetic head/liner onto a polar plot of the articulating surface. Given prosthesis specific information edge-loading can then be predicted based on the measured distance of the edge of the contact patch to the edge of the acetabular bearing. Results and conclusions. The position of the pelvis in the sagittal plane changes significantly between functional activities. The extent of change is specific to each patient. Spinal pathology can be an insidious “driver” of pelvic rotation, in some cases causing sagittal plane spinal imbalance or changes in orientation of previously well oriented acetabular components. Squeaking of ceramic on ceramic bearings appears to be multi factorial, usually involving some damage to the bearing but also usually occurring in the presence of anterior or posterior edge loading. Often these components will appear well oriented on standard views [Fig 1]. Runaway wear in hip resurfacing or large head metal-metal THR may be caused by poor component design or manufacture or component malorientation. Again we have seen multiple cases where no such malorientation can be seen on standard pelvic radiographs but functional studies demonstrate edge loading which is likely to be the cause of failure [Fig 2]. Clinical examples of all of these will be shown