Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2021 Mar 31;13(1):8794. doi: 10.4081/or.2021.8794

A bicentric approach evaluating the combination of a hemispheric cup with a novel ceramic head in total hip arthroplasty

André Busch 1,✉, Dennis Wassenaar 1, Wolfgang Zinser 2, Marcus Jäger 1
PMCID: PMC8077281  PMID: 33953887

Abstract

Medical ceramics are frequently used biomaterials as a liner in total hip arthroplasty. Strong efforts have been made to improve material properties over the last decades. Alumina toughened zirconia ceramics seem to be promising alternatives to further reduce fracture rates and squeaking phenomena. To answer the question if alumina toughened zirconia ceramic liners in combination with a cementless, hemispheric cup are able to reduce squeaking phenomena and fracture rates, we initiated a bicentric, mid-term trial. Noise phenomena will be recorded using MONA Score (Melbourne Orthopaedic Noise Assessment). Functional outcome (Harris Hip Score, University of California-Los Angeles, Forgotten Joint Score, EQ-5D Score, Visual Analogue Scale) and radiographic parameters will serve as secondary parameters. The study has been set up for 5 years, with follow-ups after 6-14 weeks, 12, 24 and 60 months.

Key words: Alumina toughened zirconia ceramics, THA, squeaking

Introduction

Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the middle of the last century, the treatment of patients with hip arthritis has been revolutionized.1 Yet, in some cases prosthetic failure occurs. Wear debris induced periprosthetic osteolysis remains one of the main causes for aseptic loosening in THA.2 Based on material specific properties, ceramic-on ceramic (CoC) bearings show the lowest wear rates in tribological studies.3-6 Wear particles of medical ceramics are biologically inert and there are no reports about cancerogenic potential.7,8 First generation medical ceramics were introduced in the 1970s in orthopaedic surgery and were made of 100% alumina oxide. Unfortunately, first generation medical ceramics have shown low strength and high brittleness.9 Moreover, these ceramics were characterized by insufficient chemical purity, low density and coarse grain size leading to a suboptimal microstructure and function in articulations.10 This is due to the fact that first generation alumina ceramics were derived from industrial applied ceramics.11 There were relevant numbers of ceramic fractures in THA leading to revision surgery with component exchanges and removal of all visible ceramic fragments.12,13 Due to the high fracture rates of alumina-on-alumina THRs encountered in 1970s the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of alumina hip prostheses. Considerable progress in the research and development of medical-grade Al2O3 was made in Germany in the 1970s.14-16 The developments have focused on purity, grain size and density since a close correlation exists between the mechanical strength and these parameters. Especially, impurities of the material glassy phases which were located on the grain boundaries of ceramic materials decreased the mechanical strength.17 In contrast, later generations of alumina ceramics showed a purity of 99.9% and glassy phases were not detected even in transmission electron microscopy (TEM).18 The grain size is another important parameter in alumina ceramics. With rising grain size, the fracture and wear rates increase.19 In general, Al2O3 implants are manufactured with additions of magnesium oxide (MgO) as dopant to control the grain growth during sintering (ranges 1.8–4.5 μm).20 The porosity is a further important characteristic of alumina ceramics. Pores, especially intergranular pores, can be sources for cracks leading to increased wear rates or fracture. The old generation of alumina ceramic implants was made by conventional sintering which increased the severity of flaws. Later generations of alumina ceramics are manufactured additional by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) at low temperatures resulting in increased density, defect-free bodies with good homogeneity of compaction and submicrometer grain size. With the improvement of the medical-grade alumina material and better hip design, Sedel et al. could show increasing survival rates of aluminaon- alumina THRs.21 Based on this development, the FDA withdrew the ban on alumina- on-alumina hip prostheses in 2003.22 However, biomechanical studies revealed high wear rates of HIPed alumina oxide ceramics (BIOLOX® Forte, CeramTec, Germany) with 1.84 mm3/million cycles under microseparation conditions in hip joint simulators.23 Zirconia ceramics were introduced in 1985 as an alternative to alumina ceramics for the femoral head. Zirconia is tougher and more resistant to fracture than alumina.24 Zirconia ceramic is characterized by three phases of physical structure. Especially, the toughness of tetragonal phase is very high whereas the tetragonal phase is very unstable.25 By the alloying of pure zirconia with oxides such as MgO and Y2O3 (yttrium oxide), the tetragonal structure can be stabilized.26 However, yttrium stabilized zirconia ceramics tend to have risk for late phase transformation and ageing leading to grain pullout, surface cracking and increasing surface roughness.27 Recent advances in the material research of medical ceramics under the use of zirconia-alumina composites showed promising results with less fracture and low wear rates in biomechanical studies.28-30 The composites were characterized as scratchresistant, strong and biocompatible. Even the addition of a small amount of alumina oxide (Al2O3) reduces significantly the transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic phase in zirconia ceramics.31 The risk for fractures were demonstrated for femoral heads 0.002% and acetabular liners 0.02%.32,33 Zirconia toughened alumina oxide ceramics (ZTA; 25% ZrO2, 75% Al2O3; BIOLOX® Delta, Ceramtec, Germany) showed very low wear under adverse microseparation simulator conditions, with wear rates reported below 0.15 mm3/million cycles.34 Alumina toughened zirconia (ATZ; 20% Al2O3, 80% ZrO2; ceramys ®, Mathys Ltd. Bettlach) showed even less wear rates below 0.10 mm3/million cycles in biomechanical studies.35

Figure 1 illustrates electron microscope photographs of different generations of medical ceramics.

Table 1 summarizes characteristics of different generations of ceramics.

Squeaking is another frequent complication after THA with CoC bearing. For ceramic acetabular liners, it is reported in up to 21%.36-40 Noise emanating from CoCbearing THAs is almost three times more frequent than noises associated with ceramic- on-polyethylene articulations.41,42 There is neither a uniform definition for postoperative squeaking nor a universal categorization for the sound. The noises range from clicking, grinding, and snapping43 to popping and clunking.44 Sound analysis revealed individual frequencies between 400 and 7500 Hz.45 Various risk factors for post-THA squeaking phenomena have been described. Patients with a high body mass index (BMI) and individuals suffering from rheumatism have an increased risk for the occurrence of post-THA squeaking.46,47 Extreme limb length shortening and wide ranges of internal and external rotation correlates also with squeaking.48,49 Implant positioning is another important issue for postoperative squeaking in THA. Walter et al. (2014) found that high or low anteversion and inclination of the acetabular component is associated with squeaking.50 Furthermore, lateralization of the hip center and high prosthetic femoral offset are also associated with hip squeaking.51 In addition, the type of implant seems to be another crucial factor for the development of post-THA squeaking. In titanium-molybdenum-zirconium- iron alloy stems (18.4%) the risk for post-THA squeaking is seven times higher than in titanium-alumina-vanadium alloy stems.52 However, in a meta-analysis from Lee et al (2014), increased cup abduction angle was the only factor being associated with significant higher rates of squeaking.53

It is not fully resolved if ceramic composites will decrease material failure such as brittleness or fatigue fractures and/or show lower rates of squeaking phenomena in vivo. For this purpose, the aneXys®-ceramys ® study was designed to evaluate squeaking phenomena and complication rates of ATZ acetabular liners in THA.

Materials and Methods

Individuals aged between 18 and 75 years with the indication for a cementless total hip arthroplasty will be included in the study after receiving informed consent. Exclusion criteria were known or suspected non-compliance (e.g. drug or alcohol abuse), missing informed consent form (signed by participant and investigator), enrolment of the investigator, his/her family, employees and other dependent persons, age younger than 18 years, revision surgery, presence of sepsis or malignant tumors, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) Classification >3, pregnancy and if patients not able to speak and understand the national language of the study center.

All surgeries will be performed by experienced hip surgeons. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the University (19-8879-BO) and is conducted according to the common guidelines for clinical trials (Declaration of Helsinki). Informed consent will be obtained for all patients. The study is registered in German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021508). The patient enrolment is expected to start soon.

Study design

In 2019 we initiated a prospective, bicentric study (aneXys®-ceramys® study, sponsor: Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland, Principal Investigator (PI): senior author) of a CE-marked zirconia-alumina ceramic acetabular liner (ceramys®, Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland) in combination with the cementless, microporous titanium coated, hemispheric cup (aneXys®, Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland). ceramys® is made of a homogeneous dispersion of ca. 20% alumina (Al2O3) and ca. 80% zirconia (ZrO2) and was first implanted in 2007. The average grain size of ceramys® is 0.4 μm. The liner has a minimum thickness of 5 mm in 45° loading direction. In all patients, the metadiaphyseal anchoring calcar-guided short stem optimys (Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland) with a ATZ ceramic head (ceramys ®, Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland) was implanted. Optimys stem is made of a titanium alloy with a plasmasprayed surface and a calcium phosphate coating. Two study centers are participating, recruiting 150 patients within a planned recruiting till end of 2021. The study has a planned follow-up period of 5 years, aiming for mid-term results.

Table 1.

Properties of the medical ceramics (data provided by Mathys AG, Bettlach, Switzerland).

Property ATZ ZTA Alumina
Al2O3 (Wt%) 20 75 100
ZrO2 (Wt%) stabilized with yttria 80 25 0
Theoretical density (g/cm3) 5.51 4.37 3.99
Medium grain size (μm) 0.4 0.8 2.3
Biaxial bending strength (MPa) >900 >700 >350
Fracture toughness MPa m1/2 >7 >5 >3
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Electron microscope photograph of different generation of medical ceramics. A) ATZ ceramic; B) ZTA ceramic; C) Al2O3 ceramic. Photographs provided by Mathys AG, Bettlach, Switzerland.

Table 2.

Parameters and methods.

Parameter Method
Squeaking phenomen MONA-Score
Implant survivorship Amount of revisions and complications
Functional Outcome Harris Hip Score, EQ-5D-Index, Forgotten Joint Score, University of California Score (UCLA)
Pain level Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Radiographic results Component alignment, leg length discrepancy, radiolucencies, bone hypertrophy, Osteolysis, Implant migration, heterotopic ossifications
Open in a new tab

Results and Discussion

Follow-up and outcome parameters

aneXys®-ceramys® study has been a designed as a prospective, mid-term analysis of zirconia/alumina ceramics as acetabular liners in combination with a cementless microporous titanium coated, hemispheric cup in THA. The study has been set up for 5 years, with follow-ups after 6-14 weeks, 12, 24 and 60 months. Figure 2 illustrates the timeline of the study.

The study seeks primarily to determine the occurrence of noise phenomena after implantation of a ceramys® acetabular liner in an aneXys® cup. In addition, clinical and radiographic results as well as complication and revision rates will be obtained as further parameters.

Noise phenomena will be recorded using MONA Score (Melbourne Orthopaedic Noise Assessment).54

Functional outcome, the well-being of the patient in daily-life activities is measured with the Harris Hip Score (HHS),55 with the Forgotten Joint Score56 and with the EQ-5D Score.57 The activity level is evaluated with UCLA Score (University of California, Los Angeles).58

The radiographs will be analyzed for osteolytic changes according to Gruen et al.59 Further radiographic parameters like migration, implant position and ossifications according to Brooker et al.60 will be assessed and documented. Table 2 summarizes different parameters.

Statistical calculations and biometry

The frequency of audible acoustic emission in patients treated with aneXys® cups and ceramys® acetabular liners shall not exceed the benchmark reported for comparable medical devices. Based on a previous unpublished PMCF study (Study ID 0702) an incidence rate of 13.4% was reported for first generation ceramic on ceramic (CoC) articulation. We expect low rates of squeaking for ATZ acetabular liners. Evaluation of endpoints is planned as per-protocol analysis. Statistical tests and presentation will be appropriate to the category and distribution of the respective variables. The test level for statistical significance is defined as P=0.05, two sided, for all tests. Based on an assumed incidence of 13.4%, the 95% confidence interval lies within a range of 8.0 and 19.0%.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Timeline of the study.

Conclusions

The analysis of MONA Score should grant distinct results for the evaluation of audible acoustic emission of ceramic acetabular liners (ceramys®) in combination with cementless, microporous titanium coated, hemispheric cups (aneXys®). Additional evaluation of radiographic parameters and the functional results as well as the revision and complication rates will allow a mid-term evaluation of the two biomaterials.

References

  • 1.Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007;370:1508-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD. History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2262–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lusty PJ., Watson A., Tuke MA. Wear and acetabular component orientation in third generation alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings: an analysis of 33 retrievals [corrected] J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hannouche D, Hamadouche M, Nizard R. Ceramics in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005:62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hannouche D, Zaoui A, Zadegan F, et al. Thirty years of experience with alumina- on-alumina bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2011;35:207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Bierbaum B, et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty: 5-9 year follow- up. Semin Arthroplast 2006;17: 146. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Christel PS. Biocompatibility of surgical- grade dense polycrystalline alumina. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;282:10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ingham E., Fisher J. Biological reactions to wear debris in total joint replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2000; 214:21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jäger M, Wild A, Werner A, Munz D, Krauspe R. [Fracture analysis of a ceramic liner. Is in hip endoprosthesis replacement of ceramic on ceramic components with only one of the corresponding partners justified?]. [Article in German] Biomed Tech (Berl) 2002;47: 306-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zeng P. Biocompatible alumina ceramic for total hip replacement Materials Science and Technology 2008;24:505. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Knahr K, Böhler M, Frank P, Plenk H, Salzer M. Survival Analysis of an Uncemented Ceramic Acetabular Component in Total Hip Replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987;106:297-300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jäger M, Wild A, Krauspe R. [Medicallegal aspects in fractured ceramic liners after implantation of a hip endoprosthesis]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2002;140:533-7. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Winston BA, Kagan RP, Huff TW. Delayed diagnosis of catastrophic ceramic liner failure with resultant pelvic discontinuity and massive metallosis. Arthroplast Today 2016;3:77-82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Willmann G. Ceramic Femoral Head Retrieval Data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;379:22-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Willmann G. Ceramics for total hip replacement—What a surgeon should know. Orthopedics 1998;21:173–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Willmann G, Pfaff HG, Richter H. Steigerung der Sicherheit von keramischen Kugelkoepfen für Hueftendoprothesen. Biomed Technik 1995;40:342–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Davidge RW, Riley FL. Grain-size dependence of the wear of alumina. Wear 1995;186-7:45-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Willmann W. Development in medicalgrade alumina during the past two decades. J Mater Proc Techn 1996;56:168-76. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rainforth WM. The wear behaviour of oxide ceramics-A Review. J Mat Sci 2004;39:6705–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bocanegra-Bernal MH, Domínguez- Rios C, Garcia-Reyes A, et al. Fracture toughness of an α-Al2O3 ceramic for joint prostheses under sinter and sinter- HIP conditions. Int J Refract Metals Hard Mat 2009;27:722-8. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sedel L, Nizard RS, Kerboull L, Witvoet J. Alumina-alumina hip replacement in patients younger than 50 years old. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;298:175–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.D’Antonio J, Capello W, Manley M, Bierbaum B. New experience with alumina- on-alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:390–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stewart T, Tipper J, Streicher R, et al. Long-term wear of HIPed alumina on alumina bearings for THR under microseparation conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:1053–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Schierano G, Mussano F, Faga MG, et al. An Alumina Toughened Zirconia Composite for Dental Implant Application: In Vivo Animal Results. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:157360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lawson S. Environmental degradation of zirconia ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 1995;15:485–502. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24:299-307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fernandez-Fairen M, Blanco A, Murcia A, et al. Aging of retrieved zirconia femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;462:122-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sentuerk U, von Roth P, Perka C. Ceramic on ceramic arthroplasty of the hip: new materials confirm appropriate use in young patients. Bone Joint J 2016;98B:14-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pitto RP, Garland M, Sedel L. Are Ceramic-on-ceramic Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty Associated With Reduced Revision Risk for Late Dislocation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015. (Epub ahead of print) PMID: 26070775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Al-Hajjar M, Carbone S, Jennings LM, et al. Wear of composite ceramics in mixed-material combinations in total hip replacement under adverse edge loading conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2017;105:1361-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liang B, Kawanabe K, Ise K, et al. Polyethylene wear against alumina and zirconia heads in cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:251-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sadoghi P, Pawelka W, Liebensteiner MC, et al. The incidence of implant fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2014;38:39–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Labek G. Quality of Publications regarding the Outcome of Revision Rate after Arthtroplasty – Final Report of the QoLA Projekt. Presented at the EFORT Congress 2011 in Copenhagen. Available at http://www.ear.efort.org/downloads/EBook_QoLA%20Project_Final%20Report_EFORT%20Copenhagen%202011.pdf (date last accessed 29 July 2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Al-Hajjar M, Leslie IJ, Tipper J, et al. Effect of cup inclination angle during microseparation and rim loading on the wear of BIOLOX® delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;95:263–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Al-Hajjar M, Jennings LM, Begand S, et al. Wear of novel ceramic-on-ceramic bearings under adverse and clinically relevant hip simulator conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101:1456–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Walter WL, Yeung E, Esposito C. A review of squeaking hips. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jarrett CA, Ranawat AS, Bruzzone M. The squeaking hip: a phenomenon of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Kurtz SM. The noisy ceramic hip: is component malpositioning the cause? J Arthroplasty 2008;23:643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: update. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mai KV, Ezzet KA, Copp SN, et al. Incidence of 'squeaking' after ceramicon- ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:413-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wu GL, Zhu W, Zhao Y, et al. Hip Squeaking after Ceramic-on-ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016;129:1861-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wyatt MC, Jesani S, Frampton C, et al. Noise from total hip replacements: a case-controlled study. Bone Joint Res 2014;3:183-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kuo FC, Liu HC, Chen WS, Wang JW. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: incidence and risk factors of bearing surface-related noises in 125 patients. Orthopedics 2012;35:e1581-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jarrett CA, Ranawat AS, Bruzzone M, et al. The squeaking hip: a phenomenon of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1344-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Walter WL, Waters TS, Gillies M, et al. Squeaking hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:102-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Swanson TV, Peterson DJ, Seethala R, et al. Influence of prosthetic design on squeaking after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:36-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Stanat SJ, Capozzi JD. Squeaking in third- and fourth-generation ceramicon- ceramic total hip arthroplasty: metaanalysis and systematic review. Arthroplasty 2012;27:445-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Haq RU, Park KS, Seon JK, Yoon TR. Squeaking after third-generation ceramic- on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:909–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sexton SA, Yeung E, Jackson MP, et al. The role of patient factors and implant position in squeaking of ceramic-onceramic total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93:439-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Walter WL, O'toole GC, Walter WK, et al. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22:496-503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sexton SA, Yeung E, Jackson MP, et al. The role of patient factors and implant position in squeaking of ceramic-onceramic total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93:439-42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Restrepo C, Post ZD, Kai B, Hozack WJ. The effect of stem design on the prevalence of squeaking following ceramic-on-ceramic bearing total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92: 550-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lee TH, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Park YS. Meta-analysis of the Incidence and Risk Factors for Squeaking after Primary Ceramic-on-ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty in Asian Patients. Hip Pelvis 2014;26:92-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.McDonnell SM, Boyce G, Baré J, et al. The incidence of noise generation arising from the large-diameter Delta Motion ceramic total hip bearing. Bone Joint J 2013;95B:160-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969;51:737-55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Robinson PG, Rankin CS, Lavery J, et al. The validity and reliability of the modified forgotten joint score. J Orthop 2018;15:480-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, et al. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:228-41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented stemtype femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979;141:17-27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973;55: 1629-32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES