Squeaking in hip arthroplasty is now well-documented but hitherto poorly understood. In this paper, we report data progressively accumulated from a series of studies undertaken by our group to investigate the mechanisms of noise production associated with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. We reviewed demographic and radiographic data comparing squeaking with silent hips. Edge loading of the acetabular components was investigated on retrieved bearings and with finite element analysis. The squeaking sound itself was further investigated through acoustic analysis. Squeaking occurs in younger, heavier, and taller patients.

We found a higher incidence of acetabular component malposition in squeaking hips and edge loading appears to be a causative factor. Finite element analysis revealed a stiffness mismatch between the shell and liner which may allow the shell to oscillate producing an audible squeak. Acoustic and modal analysis show that squeaking is due to a forced vibration and that the natural frequencies of the ceramic components are above the audible range, suggesting that resonance occurs in the metallic, not the ceramic parts. This phenomenon is related to patient factors, surgical factors, and implant factors, which may produce sound by a combination of edge loading of the ceramic and forced vibration of the acetabular shell and/or the femoral stem.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of trochlear design in total knee replacement with and without patellar resurfacing.

Methods and Results: In 1992 a trial was set up, including all patients undergoing primary PFC (Johnson & Johnson) total knee replacement. Patients were randomised to either patellar resurfacing or retention. The patients were assessed using the American Knee Society rating, a clinical anterior knee pain score and BOA patient satisfaction score. Assessment was performed without knowing whether the patella had been resurfaced.

In July 1998 we began using the PFC Sigma. This incorporates a deeper trochlear groove with a 5° valgus angle.

We compared the results for the two types of prosthesis. In the PFC group there were 474 knees in 390 patients. Follow-up was from 2 to 9 years (mean 5.5 years). The overall prevalence of anterior knee pain) was 25.1% (58 knees) and 5.3% (13 knees) in the non-resurfaced group (n=231) versus the resurfaced group (n=243) respectively. Anterior knee pain became apparent in all cases within 18 months.

In the PFC sigma group there were 67 knees in 62 patients. Follow-up was from 18 months to 3 years (mean 2 years). The incidence of anterior knee pain was 0 in the resurfaced group (n=30) versus 37.8% (14 knees) in the non-resurfaced group (n=37). Knee scores were lower in the non-resurfaced groups for each prosthesis.

Conclusion: The prevalence of anterior knee pain was significantly higher in knees with non-resurfacing of the patella. The asymmetrical, deeper femoral groove improves anterior knee pain with the resurfaced patella but may contribute to it if not resurfaced. We recommend patellar resurfacing in all cases where technically possible.