Ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty: Results of a multicenter prospective randomized study and update of modern ceramic total hip trials in the United States

Is a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing really superior to ceramic-on-polyethylene for primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of using a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) vs ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearing surface for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are much debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare and evaluate the outcomes of these 2 bearing surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, CENTRAL, Embase and Web of Science) were systematically searched for RCTs investigating the association between bearing surfaces and outcomes following primary THA. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, extracted and analysed the data.

RESULTS

In total, 13 RCTs including a total of 2,488 THAs were identified. The Harris Hip Score appeared to be similar between CoC and CoP THAs. The acetabular liner wear rate was lower in CoC than CoP THA, but the meta-analysis showed that the incidence of component-related noise and overall ceramic fracture in CoC group were 14.73 times and 6.02 times higher than CoP THA, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of radiolucent line formation (>1 mm), osteolysis, loosening, revision with follow-up ≥ 5 years, intraoperative femoral fracture, dislocation, deep infection, deep venous thrombosis and leg length discrepancy between CoC and CoP THAs.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no clear evidence favouring the use of either a CoC or CoP bearing surfaces in primary THA, further studies with high-quality and longer term follow-up to provide more evidence on this topic are still required.

Nanostructured diamond coatings for orthopaedic applications

With increasing numbers of orthopaedic devices being implanted, greater emphasis is being placed on ceramic coating technology to reduce friction and wear in mating total joint replacement components, in order to improve implant function and increase device lifespan. In this chapter, we consider ultra-hard carbon coatings, with emphasis on nanostructured diamond, as alternative bearing surfaces for metallic components. Such coatings have great potential for use in biomedical implants as a result of their extreme hardness, wear resistance, low friction and biocompatibility. These ultra-hard carbon coatings can be deposited by several techniques resulting in a wide variety of structures and properties.

Comparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings

BACKGROUND

To improve the long-term performance of hip prostheses, alternative bearings with metal-on-metal (MoM) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) couples have been introduced. Although currently the results from the use of these bearings are in the midterm stage, there have been few comparative studies of these different bearings.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2002, 487 total hip replacements were performed with use of a BICON-PLUS acetabular cup and an SL-PLUS femoral stem (Plus Orthopedics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, now Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics). The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of bearing that was used: an MoM group (sixty-nine prostheses), a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) group (200 prostheses), and a CoC group (218 prostheses). Patient demographic data and data with regard to revision operations were evaluated from the hospital computer database. The mean follow-up period was 8.5 years (range, 6.9 to 10.5 years). Patient activity was assessed with use of the University of California at Los Angeles activity scale.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was sixty years at the time of the index arthroplasty in the MoM and CoC groups, and seventy-one years in the MoP group. Based on a scale of ten, the mean postoperative activity level was six in the CoC group, five in the MoM group, and four in the MoP group. Survival at ten years with regard to revision for any reason was 0.984, 0.956, and 0.879 for the MoP, CoC, and MoM groups, respectively. When revision for any reason was considered as the end point, survival of the MoM bearings was significantly worse than that of the MoP bearings (p = 0.005). Survival at ten years with regard to revision for aseptic loosening was 0.995, 0.990, and 0.894 for the MoP, CoC, and MoM groups, respectively. When revision for aseptic loosening was considered as the end point, survival of the MoM group was significantly worse than that of either the MoP group (p = 0.001) or the CoC group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing two groups of patients of similar mean age and mean activity level undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the use of alternative bearings, CoC bearings had better survival than did MoM bearings at the ten-year follow-up; the difference was significant when revision for aseptic loosening was defined as a failure. However, neither the CoC nor the MoM alternative bearings provided improved midterm results when compared with the results of the conventional MoP bearings. For older, less active patients, traditional metal-on-polyethylene bearings are the appropriate choice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Development of ceramic-on-ceramic implants for total hip arthroplasty

Over the past three decades, alumina ceramic, now in its third/fourth generation, has been markedly improved in terms of its mechanical properties, including purity, grain microstructure, and burst strength. In the clinic, it is particularly suitable for young and for very active patients. This paper discusses the development and characteristics of different kinds of ceramics. In addition, ceramics in the third/fourth generation which are used in total hip arthroplasty clinically are reviewed in detail.

Prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty

This prospective randomized study aims to compare the outcome between an alumina ceramic-on-ceramic (CC) articulation with a ceramic on ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene articulation (CP). Fifty-six hips in 55 patients with mean age 42.2 (range, 19-56) each received uncemented components, a 28-mm alumina head with randomization of acetabular liner. Mean St Michael's outcome score for each group with up to 10 years follow-up (median, 8 years; range, 1-10) was 22.8 and 22.9, respectively (P = .819). Wear was identified in all but 1 CP replacement, but only 12 of the 23 CC. Mean wear in the CP group was 0.11 mm/y and 0.02 mm/yr in the CC group (P < .001). Other than significantly greater wear in the polyethylene group, there was no significant difference in midterm outcome between the 2 groups.

Alumina-on-alumina in THA: a multicenter prospective study

Different bearing surfaces, including alumina-on-alumina, have been used to avoid osteolysis. We prospectively followed 288 patients (319 hips) in which an alumina-on-alumina cup was used with a hydroxyapatite stem. The patients' mean age was 52.7 (range, 14-70 years), and the minimum followup was 3 years (mean, 4.7 years; range, 3-8 years). At final followup, five cups (including one with an alumina liner fracture) and two stems underwent revision. The cumulative probability of not having a revision of one or both components for any cause was 97% (95% confidence interval, 94.7%-99.1%). No patient spontaneously reported any noises from the hip and none reported noises when specifically questioned. All patients who had not undergone revision had good clinical results, but five of these patients had radiographic cup loosening at last followup. These data suggest alumina-on-alumina prostheses had reasonable outcomes after 5 years. One acetabular component fractured from trauma. We observed no linear femoral head penetration. Continued followup will be required to determine if reduction in wear between the alumina-on-alumina bearings results in less osteolysis and loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.