Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 2;474(10):2190–2199. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4917-x

Table 3.

Time elapsed (years) before revision for the three bearing types

Reason for revision (n = 2107) Ceramic-on-ceramic
(n = 238)
Metal-on-metal
(n = 148)
Polyethylene
(n = 1721)
p value
Cup + stem loosening 8 (0.4–25)a 7 (0.2–35)b 15 (0.03–42)c < 0.001
Periprosthetic fracture 5 (0.03–15)d 7 (0.06–37)e 10 (0.02–36)f 0.0023
Infection 1.5 (0.03–28)g 4 (0.03–12)h 3 (0.02–35)i 0.0402
Osteolysis 10 (5–21) 8 (4–10) 16 (6–32) N/A
Dislocation 1 (0.02–17)j 8 (0.3–17)k 6 (0–33)l 0.0307
Stem loosening 4 (0.4–17)m 3 (0.7–8)n 14 (0.3–31)o < 0.001
Technical error 2 (0.01–10) 2 (0.1–3) 1 (0.01–25) 0.112
Iliopsoas irritation 3 (0.5–9) 3 (1–4) 3 (0.5–13) N/A
Miscellaneous 2 (0.05–6) 4 (1–11) 11 (0.01–32) N/A
Implant fracture 2 (0.7–3) 9 (4–11) 11 (0.5–30) N/A
Unexplained pain 5 (1–10) 4 (1–10) 4 (1–18) N/A
Bulk ceramic fracture 2 (1–25) 11 (0.9–25) 0.028
Prosthetic Impingement 2 (1–6) 2 (0.3–5) 2 (1 hip) N/A
Ceramic sandwich fracture 9 (4–11) N/A
Squeaking 3 (2–9) 0.2 (1 hip) N/A
Total 3 (0.01–28)p 4 (0.03–37)q 13 (0–42)r < 0.001*

Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Bonferroni procedure or the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner multiple comparison procedure; a versus b: p = 0.4329; a versus c: p < 0.0001; b versus c: p < 0.0001; d versus e: p = 0.3586; d versus f: p = 0.0018; e versus f: p = 0.7022; g versus h: p = 0.2334; g versus i: p = 0.0377; h versus i: p = 0.8381; j versus k: p = 0.0566; j versus l: p = 0.0294; k versus l: p = 0.9645; m versus n: p = 0.6945; m versus o: p = 0.0003; n versus o: p = 0.0006; p versus q: p = 0.1928; p versus r: p < 0.0001; q versus r: p < 0.0001; N/A = not applicable.