The purpose of this study was to compare the results of revision total hip arthroplasty after fracture of primary ceramic components using different type of revision bearing surfaces.
Methods
We analysed the results of 16 patients with a follow-up more than 3 years after first revision. 6 were revised to ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing, 9 to metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) and 1 to ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (CoXLP) bearing.
Results
The mean follow-up was 87 months. Patients with revision to CoC had higher Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 89 points in comparison to the patients with revision to MoP with 84 points. Radiographic examinations revealed visible eccentric polyethylene wear with osteolysis in 3 out of 9 patients revised to MoP. There were no detrimental x-ray changes in patients revised to CoC components.
Conclusions
We consider CoC as the best option at revision operation for ceramic component fracture.
RiegerWCeramics in orthopedics -30 years of evolution and experience. In: Rieker C, Oberholzer S, Wyss U, eds. World Tribology forum in Arthroplasty. BernVerlag Hans Huber2001;283–94.
2.
D'AntonioJACapelloWNManleyMTNaughtonMSuttonKA titanium-encased alumina ceramic bearing for total hip arthroplasty: 3- to 5-year results.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441(441):151–158.
3.
D'AntonioJCapelloWManleyMNaughtonMSuttonKAlumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomized study.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(436):164–171.
4.
CapelloWNDantonioJAFeinbergJRManleyMTAlternative bearing surfaces: alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty.Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:171–176.
5.
CapelloWND'AntonioJAFeinbergJRManleyMTNaughtonMCeramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: update.J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7) (Suppl):39–43.
6.
MiloševIKovačSTrebšeRLevašičVPišotVComparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(19):1756–1763.
7.
LustyPJTaiCCSew-HoyRPWalterWLWalterWKZicatBAThird-generation alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(12):2676–2683.
8.
MurphySBEckerTMTannastMTwo- to 9-year clinical results of alumina ceramic-on-ceramic THA.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453(453):97–102.
9.
TopolovecMMiloševIA comparative study of four bearing couples of the same acetabular and femoral component: a mean follow-up of 11.5 years.J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):176–180.
10.
SedrakyanANormandSLDabicSJacobsSGravesSMarinac-DabicDComparative assessment of implantable hip devices with different bearing surfaces: systematic appraisal of evidence.BMJ. 2011;343:d7434.
11.
WillmannGCeramic femoral head retrieval data.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:22–28.
12.
TrainaFTassinariEDe FineMBordiniBToniARevision of a ceramic hip for fractured ceramic components: AAOS exhibit selection.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):e147.
13.
AllainJRoudot-ThoravalFDelecrinJAnractPMigaudHGoutallierDRevision total hip arthroplasty performed after fracture of a ceramic femoral head.A multicenter survivorship study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(5):825–830.
14.
SharmaVRanawatASRasquinhaVJWeiskopfJHowardHRanawatCSRevision total hip arthroplasty for ceramic head fracture: a long-term follow-up.J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(3):342–347.
15.
PulliamITTrousdaleRTFracture of a ceramic femoral head after a revision operation.A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(1):118–121.
16.
TrainaFDe FineMDi MartinoAFaldiniCFracture of ceramic bearing surfaces following total hip replacement: a systematic review.Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:157247.
17.
KooKHHaYCKimSYYoonKSMinBWKimSRRevision of ceramic head fracture after third generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):214–218.
18.
FritschEWGleitzMCeramic femoral head fractures in total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;328:129–136.
DeLeeJGCharnleyJRadiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(121):20–32.
21.
GruenTAMcNeiceGMAmstutzHC“Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):17–27.
22.
TrebšeRMiloševIKovačSMikekMPišotVPoor results from the isoelastic total hip replacement: 14-17-year follow-up of 149 cementless prostheses.Acta Orthop. 2005;76(2): 169–176.
23.
EnghCABobynJDGlassmanAHPorous-coated hip replacement.The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(1):45–55.
24.
EnghCAMassinPSuthersKERoentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(257):107-128. Erratum in: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;284:310–312.
25.
ZicatBEnghCAGokcenEPatterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(3):432–439.
26.
MorawietzLClassenRASchröderJHet al.Proposal for a histopathological consensus classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane.J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(6):591–597.
27.
DoornPFMirraJMCampbellPAAmstutzHCTissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(Suppl):S187–S205.
28.
MorrellRDanzerRMiloševITrebšeRAn assessment of in-vivo failures of alumina ceramic total hip joint replacements.J Eur Ceram Soc. 2012;32(12):3073–3084.
