Abstract

The use of Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC) bearings in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing and has been intensively analysed. This bearing plays a particularly relevant role in young, active patients and shows advantages over other bearings in biocompatibility, wear rate and lubrication properties. On the contrary, CoC bearings in revision THA are seldom used and scarcely analysed. The aim of this study is to systematically review the available literature on CoC bearings in revision THA. A systematic research in the English literature was performed to identify all studies reporting results of THA revisions using ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. The initial search strategy revealed 555 articles for consideration. On the basis of eligibility criteria, 26 studies were included in this review. Twenty-six studies, accounting for 1846 procedures, were eligible and included in the review. No studies of Level I were identified. Eighteen studies reported on revisions of CoC implants for various reasons, performed either with CoC or different bearings. In 111 patients a CoC bearing was used for the revision. Six studies consistently reported outcome measures for CoC bearing THA revisions, so that a quantitative synthesis of the data was possible. The range of follow-up across the six studies varied between 2.1 and 19 years, with a cumulative avearage follow-up of 9.3 years. A good functional result was documented, with a cumulative weighted mean for postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 87 points. The rate of dislocation in this group was 3.45% and the risk of fracture of an alumina ceramic head was 0.35% (1 study). Squeaking was reported as complication of CoC bearing THA revisions in three studies, with a calculated incidence of 0.52%. Modern CoC bearings show advantages in preclinical and retrospective studies over other bearings also in revision cases and are therefore to be considered a promising alternative for this kind of operation. Reasonable indications for CoC bearing in revision THA are revisions for aseptic loosening or recurrent dislocation in young patients, fractures of ceramic components, large acetabular defects or in patients that are allergic to bone cement components. Nevertheless, prospectively designed or randomized studies are lacking and needed to confirm CoC as optimal solution for revision THA cases.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call