Abstract
Purpose
-
To assess utility, benefits, and risks of 4th-generation alumina–zirconia ceramic pairings in elective total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods
-
A comprehensive mixed-methods best-evidence synthesis using data from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, as well as joint replacement registries, was conducted to estimate overall revision and survival rates, periprosthetic infection, bearing fractures, and noise phenomena with 4th-generation alumina–zirconia ceramic versus other tribological couplings in elective THA. The systematic review part across multiple databases was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023418076), and individual study data were extracted for statistical re-analysis.
Results
-
Twenty overlapping systematic reviews, 7, 17, and 8 references from RCTs, cohort studies, and joint replacement registries form the basis of this work. According to current best evidence, it is (i) 15–33 times more likely that 4th-generation alumina–zirconia pairings avoid a revision for infection than causing a revision for audible noise, (ii) 38–85 times more likely that 4th-generation alumina–zirconia pairings avoid a revision for infection than causing a revision for ceramic head fractures, and (iii) three to six times more likely that 4th-generation alumina–zirconia pairings avoid a revision for infection than cause a revision for ceramic liner fractures.
Conclusion
-
Fourth-generation alumina–zirconia pairings in THA show a favorable benefit–risk ratio, with rare compound-specific adverse events and complications significantly outbalanced by long-term advantages, such as a markedly lower incidence of revision for infection.
Introduction
Charnley’s artificial hip joint concept (1, 2, 3, 4) represented a disruptive technology, which, like solid organ transplantation, fundamentally changed healthcare without proof by large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Key principles of total hip arthroplasty (THA) remained virtually unchanged for more than 60 years. Current hardware is likely to survive 25 years and longer, exceeding the lifespan of most patients (5).
The durability and longevity of implants and patient outcomes depend on multiple intrinsic and extrinsic, both unalterable and modifiable variables, and their biological interactions (i.e. demography, comorbidity, medication, surgical approach, anatomical component positioning, soft-tissue balancing, restoration of leg length and axis, navigation, cemented or cementless fixation of the acetabular shell and femoral stem, platforms by different manufacturers, and many others). The tribologically optimal combination of ball and socket material remains a decisive factor for reducing wear and maximizing the likelihood of uneventful long-term survival (6).
To date, hard-on-soft (i.e. cobalt chromium molybdenum (CoCrMo) metal and alumina- or alumina–zirconia-ceramics-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene with or without antioxidants, HXLPE) and hard-on-hard (i.e. ceramic-on-ceramic) pairings are the most common in use, all of which have distinct risk–benefit profiles (7, 8).
The idea of using alumina ceramics as a fabric for THA dates back to the early 1970s and the French orthopedic surgeon pioneer Pierre Boutin (9). It needed, however, advanced manufacturing and processing technology, and another 25 years before ultrapure alumina oxide (e.g. BIOLOX forte, CeramTec, Plochingen, Germany) was certified for clinical use. Endeavors to strengthen the material even further, smoothen articulation, and minimize wear debris led to alumina–zirconia as the current industry standard, often called 4th-generation ceramics. A well-known proxy of this product line is BIOLOX delta (CeramTec), approved by authorities like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2003. Apart from clinical and healthcare issues, one must not neglect that, together with any other THA hardware and bearing, ceramics for medical purposes play a significant role in a highly competitive global market. Both BIOLOX forte and delta widely stand as a synonym of the alumina oxide and alumina–zirconia family and may represent the most frequently implanted brands worldwide, although market share data are difficult to retrieve and not publicly available.
Substantial international differences exist in the preferred choice of THA couplings (10). According to the most recent 2022 German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) report, ceramic-on-HXLPE accounts for 70% of all THAs in Germany, followed by ceramic-on-ceramic (8%) and metal-on-HXLPE (5%) (11). In Sweden, more than 70% and 15% of THAs are performed with metal-on-HXLPE and ceramic-on-HXLPE, respectively (12). Of the 89 000 primary THAs conducted across the UK in 2021, around 42 000 employed metal-on-HXLPE and ceramic-on-HXLPE pairings each (13). In the USA, 63% and 13% of all patients undergoing primary THA received ceramic-on-HXLPE and metal-on-HXLPE, respectively (14). In other words, the prior probability of a patient scheduled for THA to receive a certain bearing may, apart from individual health and demographic criteria, vary by 60% depending on nationality or citizenship. This diversity cannot be explained by scientific evidence alone. Implant availability or permit by postcode, insurance default, or provider preference without considering the current body of scientific information is dangerous for patients and the community and is likely to increase secondary tangible costs and complications in the long run.
Evidence-based decision-making should preferably rely on experimental data. Yet, despite the high frequency of THA (about two million procedures performed annually in the OECD countries alone (15)), less than 35 000 patients were enrolled in RCTs between 2000 and 2020 to study new developments or modifications like cementless fixation, short stems, novel bearings, etc., in a causal fashion (16, 17).
In such a situation, it is inevitable to consider real-world evidence as well (e.g. joint replacement registries and administrative and routine observational data) to provide an unbiased picture of the benefits, disadvantages, and risks of certain health technologies.
We herein employed best-evidence synthesis as a pragmatic and valid tool to compile experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational data (18, 19) to inform clinicians and healthcare authorities about the effectiveness and safety of 4th-generation alumina–zirconia couplings in THA.
We posed the patient and/or problem, intervention, control, outcome, time (PICOT) question, whether THA using 4th-generation (i.e. alumina–zirconia) ceramic head and/or liner pairings is associated with better outcomes compared to metal heads and/or any sort of polyethylene liners. This was operationalized as follows: (i) lower overall revision and/or higher component survival rates, (ii) lower revision rates for infection, and (iii) improved patient-reported function and/or quality of life, at any reported time of follow-up. We also assessed the incidence of adverse events and reactions typically reported with ceramic hips, such as squeaking and fractures, and how they should be traded off against their possible benefits.
Methods
Literature search
The systematic review portion of this work was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023418076). Literature retrieval across multiple databases adhered to recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration (20) and PRISMA guidelines (21). We employed PubMed and OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCO), and the Cochrane Library (Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials) as premier sources of scientific information. This was followed by a hierarchical snowball procedure to ensure completeness of evidence and unbiased results. This process involved repeated search and extraction steps in the following order:
-
Primary identification of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
-
Tabulation of studies included in systematic reviews to illustrate the intersecting set of references and overlapping evidence.
-
Electronic search for novel individual trials and studies hitherto not included in published systematic reviews.
-
Exploration of reference lists of all publications for relevant articles missed by the mentioned strategy.
-
Screening of trial registries, i.e. clinicaltrials.gov and current controlled trials.
-
Survey of major joint replacement registries like:
-
Australia (https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com)
-
Denmark (https://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk)
-
Germany (https://www.eprd.de/en)
-
The Netherlands (https://www.lroi-report.nl)
-
New Zealand (https://www.nzoa.org.nz/nzoa-joint-registry)
-
Norway (https://www.kvalitetsregistre.no/register/muskel-og-skjelett/nasjonalt-register-leddproteser)
-
Sweden (https://sar.registercentrum.se)
-
USA (https://www.aaos.org/registries/registry-program/american-joint-replacement-registry).
-
All references were imported and stored in full-text PDF format in EndNote 20.5 (Clarivate Analytics LLC, USA).
Eligibility
We extracted data from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, individual RCTs, observational clinical studies, and total joint replacement registry reports comparing common ceramic couplings (i.e. ceramic-on-HXLPE (CoHXLPE) or ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC)) with alternatives like metal-on-HXLPE (MoHXLPE) in primary elective unilateral or bilateral THA for osteoarthritis.
Although we placed a focus on 4th-generation ceramics (i.e. alumina–zirconia compounds) approved in 2003, our search algorithm went back to January 1, 1994 (marking the introduction of alumina oxide BIOLOX forte ceramic heads (CeramTec, Plochingen, Germany)). This guaranteed high sensitivity and reduced the risk of missing clinical investigations on alumina–zirconia prior to approval by the FDA, EMEA, and other regulatory bodies. We included studies published until May 1, 2023.
We decided to exclude research incorporating metal-on-metal (MoM) pairings unless relevant information on CoC controls was provided, as there is substantial evidence MoM hip resurfacing and stemmed THA with large heads are no longer a viable treatment option because of excess revision rates, metallosis, and other complications (22, 23, 24).
Alumina–zirconia pairings from manufacturers other than CeramTec (e.g. Zimmer, Smith & Nephew, DePuy, Stryker, Ceraver Osteal, Saint-Gobain Desmarquet, Wright Medical, Kyocera, and many others) were reviewed and included as well. However, we had a high prior probability that it was more likely to identify and enroll clinical trials and observational data on BIOLOX delta than on its alumina–zirconia competitors.
We included studies enrolling male, female, and diverse populations ≥18 years of age, published in Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Spanish, and Swedish, given the foreign language competence of reviewers. Using authors’ lines, affiliations, and trial registries, we investigated whether a certain trial or cohort was unique or just a long-term follow-up report of a previous one.
Enrollment criteria
To be eligible, studies had to provide
-
≥1 unequivocal, clearly defined THA coupling including alumina–zirconia ceramic heads on alumina–zirconia or any polyethylene liner material,
-
≥1 unambiguous, clearly operationalized categorical endpoint (e.g. (cumulative) surgical revision for any cause).
Exclusion criteria
As we attempted to provide a pragmatic, ubiquitously applicable risk–benefit estimate of 4th-generation alumina–zirconia components, we made no restrictions to (i) prosthetic metal hardware produced by any manufacturer, (ii) cemented or uncemented fixation, (iii) surgical access routes, (iv) additional procedures such as accelerated or fast-track rehabilitation, navigation, etc. However, we considered these variables for later sensitivity or subgroup analyses.
We excluded revision procedures, as well as THA performed for hip fractures. We also excluded laboratory, biomechanical, and animal experiments (including finite element models, clinical studies of surrogates like radiostereometry, Einzelbild-Röntgenanalyse (EBRA) etc.), and case series.
Data extraction and summary
Data from eligible references were compiled in a standardized electronic chart and sketched in a short profile. We abstracted the following:
-
Key methodological criteria (e.g. study type, country and study site(s), publication year, duration of recruitment, trial registration, a priori defined hypotheses and effect sizes, pre-defined statistical methods).
-
Trial, study, and/or individual patient baseline characteristics (demographics, co-morbidity, disease-specific variables, etc.), as provided by full-text publications and their online Supplements and appendices.
-
Treatment details (acetabular and femoral components, fixation, surgical access routes, adjunct procedures, etc.).
-
Categorical and continuous outcomes.
-
Duration of follow-up, sample sizes, numerators and denominators of binary outcomes and adverse events, means, medians, s.d ., interquartile ranges (IQR), ranges, and 95% CI for later data conversion and processing.
If main results were published as figures only (which often occurred with, but was not limited to survival curves), we extracted data by copying and reproducing the figure manually (including measures of distribution) based on jpgs embedded in Microsoft Excel sheets. Given our previous experience, we deliberated and refrained from automated tools like Plot Digitizer (25).
Exposure and outcome criteria
Key exposures
-
Different ball-and-socket pairings using alumina–zirconia and its comparators (i.e. CoHXLPE, CoC, MoHXPLE, and others).
-
Implant- and implantation-associated variables (i.e. cemented or cementless fixation, femoral head size, manufacturer, surgical approach, etc.).
Primary outcome
The primary outcome of this work was overall revision-free survival, expressed as median survival, proportion of unrevised THA at a certain time of follow-up, or hazard ratio (HR).
Co-primary outcomes
-
Incidence of and/or surgical revision for prosthetic infection, operationalized as deep surgical site infection (SSI) according to criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf), and definitions of the Philadelphia International Consensus Meeting (https://www.efort.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Philadelphia_Consensus.pdf).
-
Incidence of and/or surgical revision for ceramic fractures (heads and/or liners), verified by advanced imaging (e.g. CT and/or MRI), intra-operative findings, or subsequent implant retrieval analysis.
-
Incidence of and/or surgical revision for squeaking and/or other noise (26, 27), reported by patients and/or verified by healthcare professionals during clinical examination.
Secondary outcomes
-
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM):
-
Disease-specific instruments like Harris Hip Score (HHS) (28), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (29), and others.
-
Generic health outcome questionnaires like the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) (30), Euro-QoL 5D (EQ-5D) (31) with their 3L and 5L scoring approaches (32), etc.
-
Rating of methodological quality
With regard to systematic reviews, we accepted the original authors’ qualitative rating of included studies once they adhered to validated and accepted rating schemes like the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2) (33), the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) instrument (34), the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) (35), and others. There are currently no unified or commonly accepted quality appraisal checklists or reporting guidelines for total joint arthroplasty registries, although some recommendations had been provided by the EMA and the CDC for other fields of interest (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-registry-based-studies_en.pdf-0Individual studies, https://www.cdc.gov/datainteroperability/publichealthoptions/PH-registries-reporting.html). Studies not included in systematic reviews and identified by our advanced search strategy were methodologically assessed by the RoB 2 or ROBINS-I instrument. We employed the web-based robvis visualization tool (https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robvis-visualization-tool) to generate traffic-light plots, which were manually transferred to processable figures.
Data standardization and aggregation
Whenever possible, we derived raw numbers for all exposure and outcome variables to re-calculate or calculate consistent effect measures, i.e. risks and risk differences, means, mean and standardized mean differences, odds ratios (ORs), and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. This demanded some data transformation and approximations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook (36).
Typical narrowing formulas were:
-
Medians were set equal to means if no other information was available.
-
The S.D. was estimated as the range of data divided by 4.
-
Standard errors (SE) of proportions (p), given the sample size n were calculated as
-
The upper 97.5% confidence limit in the case of null events was estimated at 3/n according to Hanley’s rule (37).
Where suitable, we aimed at quantitative data synthesis using meta-analytical methods. This included:
-
Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions.
-
Random-effects meta-analysis of OR, RR, and HRs.
-
Random-effects meta-analysis of (standardized) mean differences.
-
Meta-regression.
Individual and aggregated indices of effectiveness were reported with 95% CI. STATA MP 16.0 (StataCorp LLC) was employed for all quantitative analyses.
Results
Literature search
The full search strategy and number of identified studies in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (updated on May 21, 2023) are shown in Supplementary tables (see section on supplementary materials given at the end of this article). A PRISMA flowchart is depicted in Fig. 1.
We identified 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2014 and 2023. Supplementary tables show the distribution and overlap of individual studies included in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Together with additional searches, we revealed 57 citations from RCTs, 29 from prospective cohort studies, 100 from retrospective cohort studies, and eight reports from total joint arthroplasty registries. Forty-seven and 29 citations specifically referred to BIOLOX delta pairings, respectively, 17 of which reported results from RCTs.
Seven, 17, and eight references from RCTs, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies, along with data from eight joint replacement registries, form the basis of this work.
Overall revision-free survival and/or cumulative revision rates
A semi-quantitative profile of all studies enrolled in this investigation, together with their RoB 2 or ROBINS-I ratings, can be found in the Supplemental appendix. In general, RCTs (mainly FDA IDE trials) had a low to moderate risk of bias, whereas 12/17 cohort studies suffered from a serious risk of bias in ≥4 of seven domains.
A summary of overall revision-free survival rates with alumina–zirconia couplings observed in four RCTs (38, 39, 40, 41) and 14 cohort studies (42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55) is shown in Table 1.
Summary of overall component survival reported by RCTs and cohort studies.
| Design | k | n | F/U, years | Overall survival, % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (s.d.) | Median, range | Mean (s.d.) | Median, range | |||
| RCT | 4 | 368 | 5.8 (0.8) | 5.6 (5.0–6.8) | 95.4 (1.6) | 94.9 (94.1–97.7) |
| Cohort studies | 14 | 3912 | 6.3 (2.8) | 5.9 (2.7–13.1) | 98.3 (1.5) | 98.5 (94.2–100.0) |
Major hip joint registries typically documented outcomes of metal hardware (i.e. stems and sockets) from various manufacturers, as well as cemented and cementless fixation. Classification of couplings, however, was limited to general principles (i.e. CoC, CoP, MoP, and others), without striving for more detailed analyses (e.g. alumina oxide versus alumina–zirconia).
In general, registry data favored the overall component survival of CoHXLPE over MoHXLPE bearings. Adjusted estimates also favored CoC over MoHXLPE, although some results remained conflicting (Fig. 2).
Graphical summary of registry data shown in Table 2.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 7; 10.1530/EOR-23-0218
The UK’s NJR (56) allows for in-depth analyses of bearings on request, thereby bridging registries, systematic reviews, RCTs, and individual studies. The sponsor of this investigation commissioned the NJR to estimate survival rates and complications with BIOLOX delta CoC and CoP versus MoP bearings (Table 2).
Key results of the commissioned bivariate in-depth analyses of the UK’s NJR.
| Variable | In-depth analysis on CoC | In-depth analysis on CoP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pairing | CoC | MoP | CoP | MoP |
| Patients | 112 194 | 648 988 | 222 951 | 648 988 |
| THA | 128 092 | 739 808 | 246 757 | 739 808 |
| Mean age | 59 | 74 | 64 | 74 |
| Median BMI | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 |
| Male patients | 47% | 36% | 43% | 36% |
| ASA | ||||
| I | 26% | 10% | 17% | 10% |
| II | 66% | 69% | 70% | 69% |
| ≥III | 8% | 21% | 13% | 21% |
| Reason for revision, revised (O/E) | ||||
| Unexplained pain | 408 (0.96) | 1198 (1.03) | 193 (0.57) | 1198 (1.15) |
| Infection | 504 (0.88) | 3184 (1.04) | 821 (0.90) | 3184 (1.05) |
| Socket fracture | 205 (1.71) | 62 (0.44) | 20 (1.12) | 62 (1.00) |
| Head fracture | 27 (1.55) | 14 (0.62) | 16 (1.70) | 14 (0.72) |
Estimates with CoP differ because of different multivariate model structures.
O / E, observed to expected ratio.
Cumulative revision rates for MoP, CoC, and CoP were 5.22%, 4.34%, and 3.75%, respectively (Fig. 3). The HR for revision, adjusted for gender, age, ASA, and fixation method, was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70–0.76) with CoP versus MoP and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79–0.87) of CoC versus MoP.
Cumulative 15-year revision rates with BIOLOX delta CoC and CoP versus MoP recorded in the UK’s NJR.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 7; 10.1530/EOR-23-0218
Cumulative 7-year revision rates with MoHXLPE, CoC, and CoHXLPE observed in the EPRD were 5.4%, 3.3%, and 4.0% , respectively (Supplementary Figure) (57).
In their most recent reports, both the Swedish and Norwegian Arthroplasty Registries showed the distribution of couplings but did not provide survival estimates for different liner and head combinations (58, 59).
An analysis of data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty (60), excluding conventional polyethylene, suggested cumulative revision rates of 3923/85 857 (4.57%) with MoP, 505/8215 (6.15%) with CoP, and 304/4766 (6.38%) with CoC. HRs adjusted for age and gender were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93–1.13) with CoP and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.82–1.05) with CoC.
In the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), age- and gender-adjusted HRs for all-cause revision with CoC versus MoHXLPE and CoHXLPE versus MoHXLPE were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96–1.04) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74–0.84), respectively (Supplementary Figure) (61).
The New Zealand registry stratifies the risk of revision for different THA couplings (62). Revision rates per 100 component years were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.44–0.51) with CoC, 0.56 (95% CI: 0.53–0.59) with CoP, and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.61–0.65) with MoP. Focusing on cross-linked polyethylene liners, revision rates per 100 component years were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.43–0.49) with CoP and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.46–0.51) with MoP.
The Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) specifies revision rates for acetabular components in a competing-risk and raw Kaplan–Meier model (Table 3) (63). Competing risk means that, for example, a patient who dies 5 years after index surgery with a stable and clinically inconspicuous THA obviously cannot contribute to 10-year revision estimates.
Acetabular revision rates stratified for cross-linked polyethylene and ceramic liners in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) (63)
| Socket bearing | n | 10-year revision percentage | 13-year revision percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competing risk | Kaplan–Meier | Competing risk | Kaplan–Meier | ||
| HXLPE | 160 639 | 1.6 (1.5–1.6) | 1.9 (1.8–2.0) | 1.8 (1.6–1.9) | 2.1 (2.0–2.3) |
| Ceramics | 23 401 | 1.6 (1.4–1.8) | 1.8 (1.6–2.0) | 1.9 (1.6–2.2) | 2.2 (1.9–2.6) |
Cumulative revision rates because of infection
Infection was studied by 15 experimental and observational studies (38, 39, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76) enrolled in previous meta-analyses.(77, 78) Raw cumulative infection rates were 97/17 633 (0.55%, 95% CI: 0.45–0.67%) with CoC, 1351/158 341 (0.85%, 95% CI: 0.81–0.90%) with MoP, and 6/811 (0.74%, 95% CI: 0.27–1.60%) with CoP. Estimates from random-effects meta-analysis of proportions were 0.44% (95% CI: 0.10–0.93%), 0.59% (0.26–1.01%), and 0.21% (0.00–1.04%), respectively.
An analysis of the UK’s NJR (56), published in 2018 (79), showed cumulative incidences of revision for prosthetic joint infections of 0.410% with MoP (1/244), 0.342% with CoP (1/292), and 0.343% with CoC (1/291). With marginal and even zero event rates, random-effects meta-analysis of risk differences favored CoC pairings, mainly driven by comparisons of CoC with MoP.
The high-granularity commissioned NJR data exploration revealed that, after adjustment for gender, age group, ASA class, as well as stem and cup fixation, the observed expected ratio of infections was 0.88 with alumina–zirconia CoC and 1.04 with MoP (P < 0.001).
Ceramic fractures
Unadjusted implant fracture rates observed in the UK’s NJR are listed in Table S7 as well. After adjustment for gender, age group, ASA class, as well as stem and cup fixation, O:E ratios of head and socket fractures were 1.55 and 1.71 with BIOLOX delta CoC and 0.62 and 0.44 with MoP. With CoP and MoP, O:E ratios were 1.70 and 1.12, and 0.72 and 1.00, respectively.
Squeaking and other noise
There is currently no standardized recording or reporting scheme for noise across registries. According to data from the New Zealand Joint Registry collected between 1999 and 2015, the incidence of revision for CoC hips due to noise was 24/5587 (0.43%, 95% CI: 0.28–0.64%) (80). With an average follow-up of 6 years, raw numbers from 21 cohort studies (42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 73, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89) and four RCT(38, 39, 65, 68) suggest an incidence of squeaking of 360/5658 (6.36%, 95% CI: 5.74–7.03%) and 9/321 (2.80%, 95% CI: 1.29–5.26%). Estimates from random-effects meta-analysis of proportions are 4.70% (95% CI: 2.27–7.89%) and 1.64% (95% CI: 0.04–4.67%), showing substantial heterogeneity (Supplementary Figure). A Cates plot (90) using natural frequencies (Supplementary Figure) illustrates how results may be put into context and interpreted reasonably.
Association between auditory phenomena and fractures with ceramic pairings
Variance-weighted regression analysis based on 21 studies with 5079 hips, which reported both the incidence of squeaking and ceramic fractures, showed high variability in the incidence of squeaking (0.0–18.5%) but low variability in the rate of ceramic fractures (0.0– 2.3%) (Fig. 4). The regression coefficient does not suggest an association between squeaking and ceramic fractures (β = 0.01, P = 0.612).
Association between the frequency of ceramic fractures and squeaking.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 7; 10.1530/EOR-23-0218
Function, PROM, and health-related quality of life
Many studies included in this best evidence synthesis commenced when patient-centered outcomes were either not demanded or assessed by protocol or handled in a secondary fashion. In addition, researchers employed tools established in their individual country (HHS, Oxford Hip Score, WOMAC, SF-36, EQ-5D, etc.) with distinct norm values, MCID, etc. The most common instrument across investigations was the HHS. Data from 24 studies (38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 65, 68, 81, 83, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93) indicated a clinically relevant average functional improvement of 42.4 (range: 30.7–54.0) points in HHS from baseline to latest follow-up, without marked differences between bearing materials (Supplementary Figure).
Discussion
General findings
In this best-evidence synthesis, we attempted to identify and compile all available experimental and observational clinical scientific information on 4th-generation alumina–zirconia ceramic pairings in elective THA to provide unbiased estimates of their distinct advantages and potential risks, published until May 2023.
The title of this work is a play on words and refers to the famous quote, ‘May the force be with you’ from the Star Wars universe.
Overall revision rates favored CoC and CoHXLPE over MoP during long-term (>10 years) follow-up. Infections occurred in 0.39%, 0.33%, and 0.43%, respectively. The weighted incidence of squeaking with ceramic pairings was three times lower under controlled experimental conditions than in an observational environment.
In health economy, there is always a trade-off between distinct advantages and disadvantages when comparing one intervention to another. In this scenario, alumina–zirconia ceramic compounds are known for being associated with squeaking and fractures but may prevent deep infections in the long run. The key question is: How many alumina–zirconia ceramic THA must be implanted to avoid one deep infection, and how many events of squeaking or even fractures shall be accepted to make alumina–zirconia ceramic hips the dominant treatment strategy over MoP, CoP, etc. Our results may serve as the robust source for consecutive risk–benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, and data will happily be shared with other researchers upon request.
Randomized controlled trials in the context of real-world evidence
Without a doubt, there is a lack of large-scale RCTs comparing alumina–zirconia ceramics with alternative couplings in THA. Marginal (adverse) event rates with approved products and procedures hamper designing feasible superiority or non-inferiority clinical trials to evaluate step innovations along the IDEAL framework (94, 95) – tremendously high costs and difficulties in achieving completeness of follow-up over years notwithstanding.
There is a common belief (or misbelief) that data from large-scale joint arthroplasty registries may replace RCTs in this scenario. However, RCTs and registries aim at different goals and are not interchangeable. RCTs investigate whether a certain treatment is effective compared to a certain control in a controlled experimental set-up. This even applies to pragmatic RCTs (96). Registries depict the efficiency of interventions and procedures, i.e. what remains of an experimentally proven effect with a certain intervention under daily care conditions (‘real-world’ evidence (97)).
Registry-based RCTs may combine the best of both worlds (98, 99). This compelling design involves the random allocation of patients to different treatments at the point of care (i.e. the experimental part) and routine longitudinal documentation along with mandatory registry follow-up (i.e. the real-world part). Distinct advantages of this approach are minimal administrative efforts, costs, and dropouts or losses to follow-up. However, it requires an established national registry culture, specific data safety regulations, and both acceptance and awareness of patients and providers for utilizing routine data for research purposes. Registry-based RCTs are currently underrepresented in orthopedics and have mainly been planned and conducted in Scandinavia and the UK (100, 101, 102)
Limitations
While the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement (103) was developed as guidance for reporting registry data, there are currently no uniform requirements for designing, maintaining, and analyzing joint replacement registries. Completeness of follow-up and unequivocal operationalization of both exposure and outcome variables minimize the risk of misclassification and partial verification bias, which is a prerequisite for detecting rare and even rare adverse events (the most valuable and unique benefit of population-based registries). For example, the EPRD (57) is supported by the Federal Health Insurance Fund, facilitating and guaranteeing longitudinal data integrity.
Major joint replacement registries record the item ‘ceramics’ for ball and socket composition but infrequently differentiate between material generations or manufacturers. This hampers deep modeling of the contribution of 4th-generation alumina–zirconia pairings on overall component survival, revision for infection, etc.
Certain adverse events and reactions, such as noise (specifically squeaking) as well as ceramic fractures, are currently not assessed in a consistent and quantifiable manner and are also not routinely recorded in most joint replacement registries. In addition, follow-up times for some ceramic pairings are still insufficient to draw conclusive inferences about their potential value.
As squeaking and other noises with ceramic THA were not of significant scientific and media interest until the mid 2000s (104), they were not part of the original FDA IDE trials and only partly queried during later follow-up investigations. Whereas it is undebatable that patients may experience noise phenomena with ceramic hips, little if any, clinical consequences (e.g. surgical revision) were reported in clinical and population-based studies. The high variability in the reporting of noise stands in marked contrast to the low incidence of ceramic fractures, and no association between both events could be determined by regression analysis.
Biomechanical surrogates like wear, abrasion, friction, etc., were, at best, infrequently assessed and illustrated by RCTs and cohort studies, and not addressed by registries at all. Although comprehensive in many ways, this work lacks sufficient granularity to explain construct collapse by tribological malfunction. Linking advanced imaging studies and retrieval analyses to registry data may help to better understand the reason for component failure currently subsumed under unspecific terms like loosening in the future.
Conclusion
According to the current best evidence, it is between 3 and 85 times more likely that 4th-generation alumina–zirconia oxide ceramic pairings like BIOLOX delta avoid revisions for infection than causing revisions for audible noise or ceramic fractures (105, 106, 107, 108).
The results of this work may provide the basis for a subsequent health-technology assessment report, incorporating formal health-economic analysis of tangible and intangible costs and gains. They may also lead to evidence-based reconsideration of current practice in countries where the relative frequency of alumina–zirconia ceramic couplings remains low or declined during the past years – which is at odds with scientific clues. Even in the absence of a large-scale multicenter RCT, the data presented here may be considered the state-of-the-art guidance for regulatory bodies, healthcare authorities, payers, and other stakeholders for choosing effective, efficient, and durable tribological pairings in elective THA. To promote the intriguing registry-based RCT idea, operators of established and future registries must agree upon common standards and procedures, minimal datasets, and follow-up regimens.
Supplementary materials
This is linked to the online version of the paper at https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0218.
ICMJE Conflict of Interest Statement
DS and NK received personal research grants from CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany, to conduct this project, unfolded to and approved by their employers. The sponsor had no influence on methods, data analysis, or interpretation of results of this work. All other authors (i.e. CP, MM, LZ, and AE) disclose they had or have clinical, scientific, or commercial relationships with CeramTec in the past or ongoing collaborations, none of which had any impact on this article. LZ is an Associate Editor at EFORT Open Reviews, and was not involved with the peer review process for this article. There are no other conflicts of interest relevant or related to this submission.
Funding Statement
This work was partly funded by CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany.
Data sharing agreement
The authors would be happy to share anonymized aggregated datasets with other researchers on request following current data safety and protection rules such as EU-GDPR.
References
- 1↑
Learmonth ID, Young C, & Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007 370 1508–1519. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(0760457-7)
- 2↑
Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, & Howie CR. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement. Bone and Joint Journal 2013 95-B 115–121. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29835)
- 3↑
Agarwal N, To K, & Khan W. Cost effectiveness analyses of total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a PRISMA systematic review. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2021 75 e13806. (https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13806)
- 4↑
Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip. A new operation. Lancet 1961 1 1129–1132. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(6192063-3)
- 5↑
Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, & Whitehouse MR. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019 393 655–663. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(1832531-5)
- 6↑
Zagra L, & Gallazzi E. Bearing surfaces in primary total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Reviews 2018 3 217–224. (https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.180300)
- 7↑
Lachiewicz PF, Kleeman LT, & Seyler T. Bearing surfaces for total hip arthroplasty. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2018 26 45–57. (https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00754)
- 8↑
Merola M, & Affatato S. Materials for hip prostheses: a review of wear and loading considerations. Materials 2019 12 495. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12030495)
- 9↑
Boutin P. Total hip arthroplasty using a ceramic prosthesis. Pierre Boutin (1924–1989). Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2000 379 3–11.
- 10↑
Tsikandylakis G, Overgaard S, Zagra L, & Karrholm J. Global diversity in bearings in primary THA. EFORT Open Reviews 2020 5 763–775. (https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.200002)
- 11↑
Grimberg A, Lützner J, Melsheimer O, Morlock M & & Steinbrück A The German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD): Annual Report 2022. Berlin: EPRD Deutsche Endoprothesenregister gGmbH 2023. Available at: https://www.eprd.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien/Publikationen/Berichte/AnnualReport2022-Web_2023-03-30_F.pdf
- 12↑
Dahl A, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Mohaddes M, Carling M, Sundberg M, Bülow E, Nåtman J, Carlsen H, Isaksson R, et al.The Swedish Arthroplasty Register: Annual Report 2022: the Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Registercentrum Västra Götaland 2022.
- 13↑
UK National Joint Registry. 19th Annual Report 2022. Available at: https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/13/PDFdownloads/NJR%2019th%20Annual%20Report%202022.pdf
- 14↑
American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR): 2022 Annual Report. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Available at: https://connect.registryapps.net/2022-ajrr-annual-report
- 15↑
Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Portner N, & Geissler A. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip International 2018 28 498–506. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018757940)
- 16↑
Liang HD, Yang WY, Pan JK, Huang HT, Luo MH, Zeng LF, & Liu J. Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2018 8 e021649. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021649)
- 17↑
Phedy P, Ismail HD, Hoo C, & Djaja YP. Total hip replacement: a meta-analysis to evaluate survival of cemented, cementless and hybrid implants. World Journal of Orthopedics 2017 8 192–207. (https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i2.192)
- 18↑
Slavin RE. Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher 1986 15 5–11. (https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015009005)
- 19↑
Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1995 48 9–18. (https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(9400097-a)
- 20↑
Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf MI, Noel-Storr A, Paynter R, Rader T, Thomas J, Wieland LS. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. 2022. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3. Cochrane 2022. (available at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook)
- 21↑
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2021 10 89. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4)
- 22↑
Pijls BG, Meessen J, Tucker K, Stea S, Steenbergen L, Marie Fenstad A, Mäkelä K, Cristian Stoica I, Goncharov M, Overgaard S, et al.MoM total hip replacements in Europe: a NORE report. EFORT Open Reviews 2019 4 423–429. (https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180078)
- 23↑
Drummond J, Tran P, & Fary C. Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a review of adverse reactions and patient management. Journal of Functional Biomaterials 2015 6 486–499. (https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb6030486)
- 24↑
Cohen D. How safe are metal-on-metal hip implants? BMJ 2012 344 e1410. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1410)
- 25↑
Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S, Sapunar D, & Puljak L. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016 74 119–123. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.002)
- 26↑
Levy YD, Munir S, Donohoo S, & Walter WL. Review on squeaking hips. World Journal of Orthopedics 2015 6 812–820. (https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v6.i10.812)
- 27↑
Jarrett CA, Ranawat AS, Bruzzone M, Blum YC, Rodriguez JA, & Ranawat CS. The squeaking hip: a phenomenon of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009 91 1344–1349. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00970)
- 28↑
Nilsdotter A, & Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) hip and knee questionnaire. Arthritis Care and Research 2011 63 (Supplement 11) S200–S207. (https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20549)
- 29↑
MacKay C, Clements N, Wong R, & Davis AM. A systematic review of estimates of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis Index in patients who underwent total hip and total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2019 27 1408–1419. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.05.002)
- 30↑
Stucki G, Liang MH, Phillips C, & Katz JN. The short form-36 is preferable to the SIP as a generic health status measure in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Care and Research 1995 8 174–181. (https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790080310)
- 31↑
Schatz C, Klein N, Marx A, & Buschner P. Preoperative predictors of health-related quality of life changes (EQ-5D and EQ VAS) after total hip and knee replacement: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2022 23 58. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04981-4)
- 32↑
Jiang R, Rand K, Kuharic M, & Pickard AS. EQ-5D-5L measurement properties are superior to EQ-5D-3L across the continuum of health using US value sets. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2022 20 134. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02031-8)
- 33↑
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, et al.RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019 366 l4898. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898)
- 34↑
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al.Robins-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016 355 i4919. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919)
- 35↑
Granholm A, Alhazzani W, & Møller MH. Use of the GRADE approach in systematic reviews and guidelines. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2019 123 554–559. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.08.015)
- 36↑
Higgins JPT, Li T, & Deeks JJ. Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3. Cochrane 2022. (available at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook)
- 37↑
Eypasch E, Lefering R, Kum CK, & Troidl H. Probability of adverse events that have not yet occurred: a statistical reminder. BMJ 1995 311 619–620. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7005.619)
- 38↑
Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Dennis DA, Murphy JA, Blumenfeld TJ, & Politi J. THA with delta ceramic on ceramic: results of a multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010 468 358–366. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1091-4)
- 39↑
Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Seng BE, Clarke IC, & Adams JB. Delta ceramic-on-alumina ceramic articulation in primary THA: prospective, randomized FDA-IDE study and retrieval analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010 468 367–374. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1143-9)
- 40↑
Morison ZA, Patil S, Khan HA, Bogoch ER, Schemitsch EH, & Waddell JP. A randomized controlled trial comparing Oxinium and cobalt-chrome on standard and cross-linked polyethylene. Journal of Arthroplasty 2014 29 (Supplement 9)164–168. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.046)
- 41↑
Schouten R, Malone AA, Frampton CM, Tiffen C, & Hooper G. Five-year follow-up of a prospective randomised trial comparing ceramic-on-metal and metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Bone and Joint Journal 2017 99-B 1298–1303. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B10.BJJ-2016-0905.R1)
- 42↑
Aoude AA, Antoniou J, Epure LM, Huk OL, Zukor DJ, & Tanzer M. Midterm outcomes of the recently FDA approved ceramic on ceramic bearing in total hip arthroplasty patients under 65 years of age. Journal of Arthroplasty 2015 30 1388–1392. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.028)
- 43↑
Baek SH, Kim WK, Kim JY, & Kim SY. Do alumina matrix composite bearings decrease hip noises and bearing fractures at a minimum of 5 years after THA? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2015 473 3796–3802. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4428-1)
- 44↑
Chatelet JC, Fessy MH, Saffarini M, Machenaud A, Artro Institute Writing Committee & Jacquot L. Articular noise after THA using delta CoC bearings has little impact on quality of life. Journal of Arthroplasty 2021 36 1678–1687. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.11.012)
- 45↑
Davis ET, Remes V, Virolainen P, Gebuhr P, Van Backle B, Revell MP, & Kopjar B. Mid-term outcomes of the R3 delta ceramic acetabular system in total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2021 16 35. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02192-6)
- 46↑
Goldhofer MI, Munir S, Levy YD, Walter WK, Zicat B, & Walter WL. Increase in benign squeaking rate at five-year follow-up: results of a large diameter ceramic-on-ceramic bearing in total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2018 33 1210–1214. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.044)
- 47↑
Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Blumenfeld TJ, Lesko JP, Himden SE, & Dennis DA. Midterm results of delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2015 30 (Supplement 9)110–115. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.047)
- 48↑
Henri Bauwens P, Fary C, Servien E, Lustig S, & Batailler C. Early low complication rate of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach. SICOT-J 2020 6. (https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2020027)
- 49↑
Kim SC, Lim YW, Jo WL, Park HW, Han SB, Kwon SY, & Kim YS. Fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic THA results in improvements in midterm outcomes compared to third-generation THA but does not resolve noise problems: a cohort study of a single-hip system. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2019 20 263. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2641-x)
- 50↑
Kusaba A, Asahi M, Hirano M, Sunami H, & Kondo S. Ceramic on ceramic bearings for dysplastic hips: analysis of uncemented 2,861 THAs. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants 2020 30 275–282. (https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2020036091)
- 51↑
Lee YK, Ha YC, Jo WL, Kim TY, Jung WH, & Koo KH. Could larger diameter of 4th generation ceramic bearing decrease the rate of dislocation after THA? Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2016 21 327–331. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2016.01.002)
- 52↑
Lee YK, Ha YC, Yoo JI, Jo WL, Kim KC, & Koo KH. Mid-term results of the BIOLOX delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Bone and Joint Journal 2017 99-B 741–748. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.BJJ-2016-0486.R3)
- 53↑
Lim SJ, Ryu HG, Eun HJ, Park CW, Kwon KB, & Park YS. Clinical outcomes and bearing-specific complications following fourth-generation alumina ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: A single-surgeon series of 749 hips at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. Journal of Arthroplasty 2018 33 2182–2186.e1. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.045)
- 54↑
Luo Y, Sun XF, Chen J, Cui W, & Wang T. Could larger diameter of 4th generation ceramic bearing increase the rate of squeaking after THA?: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018 97 e13977. (https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013977)
- 55↑
Novoa-Parra CD, Pelayo-de Tomás JM, Gómez-Aparicio S, López-Trabucco RE, Morales-Suárez-Varela M, & Rodrigo-Pérez JL. Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic bearings: clinical and survival results with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition) 2019 63 110–121. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recote.2018.07.012)
- 57↑
The German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). Annual Report 20222022. (available at: https://www.eprd.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien/Publikationen/Berichte/AnnualReport2022-Web_2023-03-30_F.pdf)
- 58↑
Swedish Arthroplasty Registry [Internet] 2023. (available at: https://sar.registercentrum.se/news/download-the-sar-annual-report-2022)
- 59↑
Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry [Internet] 2023. (available at: https://helse-bergen.no/seksjon/Nasjonal_kompetansetjeneste_leddproteser_hoftebrudd/Share%20point%20Documents/Rapport/Rapport%202022.pdf)
- 60↑
Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register [Internet] 2023. (available at: http://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DHR-aarsrapport-2021_Udgivet-2022_offentliggjort-version-1.pdf)
- 61↑
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [Internet] 2023. (available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/web/guest/annual-reports-2022)
- 62↑
New Zealand Orthopaedic Association Joint Registry [Internet] 2023. (available at: https://www.nzoa.org.nz/annual-reports)
- 63↑
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) [Internet] 2023. (available at: https://www.lroi-report.nl/hip/survival-tha/revision-per-component/)
- 64↑
Amanatullah DF, Landa J, Strauss EJ, Garino JP, Kim SH, & Di Cesare PE. Comparison of surgical outcomes and implant wear between ceramic-ceramic and ceramic-polyethylene articulations in total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2011 26 (Supplement 6) 72–77. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.032)
- 65↑
Atrey A, Wolfstadt JI, Hussain N, Khoshbin A, Ward S, Shahid M, Schemitsch EH, & Waddell JP. The ideal total hip replacement bearing surface in the Young patient: A prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene: 15-year follow-up. Journal of Arthroplasty 2018 33 1752–1756. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.066)
- 66↑
Bascarevic Z, Vukasinovic Z, Slavkovic N, Dulic B, Trajkovic G, Bascarevic V, & Timotijevic S. Alumina-on-alumina ceramic versus metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a comparative study. International Orthopaedics 2010 34 1129–1135. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0899-6)
- 67↑
Bozic KJ, Lau EC, Ong KL, Vail TP, Rubash HE, & Berry DJ. Comparative effectiveness of metal-on-metal and metal-on-polyethylene bearings in Medicare total hip arthroplasty patients. Journal of Arthroplasty 2012 27 (Supplement 8)37–40. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.031)
- 68↑
Cai P, Hu Y, & Xie J. Large-diameter delta ceramic-on-ceramic versus common-sized ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in THA. Orthopedics 2012 35 e1307–e1313. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20120822-14)
- 69↑
D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, & Naughton M. Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty have high survivorship at 10 years. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2012 470 373–381. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2076-7)
- 70↑
Pitto RP, Blanquaert D, & Hohmann D. Alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty: zirconia-alumina pairing. Contribution or caveat? Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2002 68 242–250.
- 71↑
Sonny Bal B, Aleto TJ, Garino JP, Toni A, & Hendricks KJ. 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. Hip International 2005 15 129–135. (https://doi.org/10.1177/112070000501500301)
- 72↑
Vendittoli P, Girard J, Lavigne M, Lavoie P, & Duval N. Comparison of alumina-alumina to metal-polyethylene bearing surfaces in THA: a randomized study with 4- to 9-years follow-up. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2007 73 468–477.
- 73↑
Kim YH, & Park JW. Eighteen-year follow-up study of 2 alternative bearing surfaces used in total hip arthroplasty in the same Young patients. Journal of Arthroplasty 2020 35 824–830. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.09.051)
- 74↑
Topolovec M, & Milosev I. A comparative study of four bearing couples of the same acetabular and femoral component: a mean follow-up of 11.5 years. Journal of Arthroplasty 2014 29 176–180. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.030)
- 75↑
Varnum C, Pedersen AB, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, & Overgaard S. Comparison of the risk of revision in cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Acta Orthopaedica 2015 86 477–484. (https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1012975)
- 76↑
Beaupre LA, Al-Houkail A, & Johnston DWC. A randomized trial comparing ceramic-on-ceramic bearing vs ceramic-on-crossfire-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2016 31 1240–1245. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.043)
- 77↑
Shang X, & Fang Y. Comparison of Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs. ceramic-on-polyethylene for primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 15 randomized trials. Frontiers in Surgery 2021 8 751121. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.751121)
- 78↑
Hexter AT, Hislop SM, Blunn GW, & Liddle AD. The effect of bearing surface on risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone and Joint Journal 2018 100-B 134–142. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B2.BJJ-2017-0575.R1)
- 79↑
Lenguerrand E, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD, Kunutsor SK, Burston B, Porter M, & Blom AW. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2018 18 1004–1014. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(1830345-1)
- 80↑
Sharplin P, Wyatt MC, Rothwell A, Frampton C, & Hooper G. Which is the best bearing surface for primary total hip replacement? A New Zealand Joint Registry study. Hip International 2018 28 352–362. (https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000585)
- 81↑
Bistolfi A, Ferracini R, Aprato A, Massè A, Daghino W, Lea S, Artiaco S, & Lee GC. Third generation delta ceramic-on-ceramic bearing for total hip arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up. Journal of Orthopaedics 2020 22 397–401. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.023)
- 82↑
Blakeney WG, Beaulieu Y, Puliero B, Lavigne M, Roy A, Masse V, & Vendittoli PA. Excellent results of large-diameter ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty: is squeaking related to head size. Bone and Joint Journal 2018 100-B 1434–1441. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B11.BJJ-2018-0532.R1)
- 83↑
Feng B, Ren Y, Cao S, Lin J, Jin J, Qian W, & Weng X. Comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic bearing vs ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene-bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty for avascular necrosis of femoral head: a prospective cohort study with a mid-term follow-up. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2019 14 388. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1410-8)
- 84↑
Gillespie JA, Kennedy JW, Patil SR, & Meek DRM. Noise production in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower patient satisfaction and hip scores. Journal of Orthopaedics 2016 13 282–284. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.06.018)
- 85↑
Lee YK, Ha YC, & Koo KH. Comparison between 28 mm and 32 mm ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip replacement. Bone and Joint Journal 2014 96-B 1459–1463. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34358)
- 86↑
Salo PP, Honkanen PB, Ivanova I, Reito A, Pajamäki J, & Eskelinen A. High prevalence of noise following Delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Bone and Joint Journal 2017 99-B 44–50. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.37612)
- 87↑
Shah SM, Deep K, Siramanakul C, Mahajan V, Picard F, & Allen DJ. Computer navigation helps reduce the incidence of noise after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2017 32 2783–2787. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.019)
- 88↑
Tai SM, Munir S, Walter WL, Pearce SJ, Walter WK, & Zicat BA. Squeaking in large diameter ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2015 30 282–285. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.010)
- 89↑
Wang W, Guo W, Yue D, Shi Z, Zhang N, Liu Z, Sun W, Wang B, & Li Z. Fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty in patients of 55 years or younger: short-term results and complications analysis. Chinese Medical Journal 2014 127 2310–2315. (https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20133349)
- 91↑
Jonsson BA, Kadar T, Havelin LI, Haugan K, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Furnes O, & Hallan G. Oxinium modular femoral heads do not reduce polyethylene wear in cemented total hip arthroplasty at five years: a randomised trial of 120 hips using radiostereometric analysis. Bone and Joint Journal 2015 97-B 1463–1469. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.36137)
- 92↑
Kawate K, Ohmura T, Kawahara I, Tamai K, Ueha T, & Takemura K. Differences in highly cross-linked polyethylene wear between zirconia and cobalt-chromium femoral heads in Japanese patients: a prospective, randomized study. Journal of Arthroplasty 2009 24 1221–1224. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.023)
- 93↑
Lindalen E, Nordsletten L, Høvik Ø, & Röhrl SM. E-vitamin infused highly cross-linked polyethylene: RSA results from a randomised controlled trial using 32 mm and 36 mm ceramic heads. Hip International 2015 25 50–55. (https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000195)
- 94↑
Stengel D. The changing landscape of product development and randomized trials. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 2012 94(Supplement 1) 85–91. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00248)
- 95↑
Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, Campbell B, Campbell M, Feinberg J, Rovers M, Blencowe N, Pennell C, Quinn T, et al.No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Annals of Surgery 2019 269 211–220. (https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002794)
- 96↑
Stengel D, Augat P, & Giannoudis PV. Large-scale, pragmatic randomized trials in the era of big data, precision medicine and machine learning. Valid and necessary, or outdated and a waste of resources? Injury 2023 54(Supplement 3) S2–S9. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.12.016)
- 97↑
Liu F, & Panagiotakos D. Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2022 22 287. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01768-6)
- 98↑
James S, Rao SV, & Granger CB. Registry-based randomized clinical trials –a new clinical trial paradigm. Nature Reviews Cardiology 2015 12 312–316. (https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33)
- 99↑
Karanatsios B, Prang K-H, Verbunt E, Yeung JM, Kelaher M, & Gibbs P. Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review. Trials 2020 21 552. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z)
- 100↑
Farey JE, Hooper T, Alland T, Naylor JM, Kelly TL, Lorimer M, Lewin AM, Rogers M, Law CK, Close J, et al.Dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fractures (DISTINCT): protocol for a registry-nested, open-label, cluster-randomised crossover trial. BMJ Open 2022 12 e064478. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064478)
- 101↑
van Schie P, van Bodegom-Vos L, Zijdeman TM, Nelissen RGHH, Marang-van de Mheen PJ & IQ Joint study group. Effectiveness of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve patient outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a registry nested cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Quality and Safety 2023 32 34–46. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014472)
- 102↑
Wolf O, Sjöholm P, Hailer NP, Möller M, & Mukka S. Study protocol: HipSTHeR – a register-based randomised controlled trial – hip screws or (total) hip replacement for undisplaced femoral neck fractures in older patients. BMC Geriatrics 2020 20 19. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1418-2)
- 103↑
Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, Sørensen HT, von Elm E, Langan SM & RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Medicine 2015 12 e1001885. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885)
- 104↑
Walter WL, O'Toole GC, Walter WK, Ellis A, & Zicat BA. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. Journal of Arthroplasty 2007 22 496–503. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.06.018)
- 105↑
Hannouche D, Zingg M, Miozzari H, Nizard R, & Lübbeke A. Third-generation pure alumina and alumina matrix composites in total hip arthroplasty: what is the evidence? EFORT Open Reviews 2018 3 7–14. (https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170034)
- 106↑
Hernigou P, & Bahrami T. Zirconia and alumina ceramics in comparison with stainless-steel heads. Polyethylene wear after a minimum ten-year follow-up. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British Volume 2003 85 504–509. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.85b4.13397)
- 107↑
Hernigou P, Homma Y, Pidet O, Guissou I, & Hernigou J. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing decreases the cumulative long-term risk of dislocation. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2013 471 3875–3882. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2857-2)
- 108↑
Hernigou P, Zilber S, Filippini P, & Poignard A. Ceramic-ceramic bearing decreases osteolysis: a 20-year study versus ceramic-polyethylene on the contralateral hip. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2009 467 2274–2280. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0773-2)
