Hip & pelvis

The Korean Hip Society (대한고관절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Ceramic-on-ceramic Bearing Surfaces: Long-term Assessment of Squeaking Sounds

  • Kim, Min Wook (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kwangju Christian Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sang Min (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kwangju Christian Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Young Yool (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kwangju Christian Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.12.01
  • Accepted : 2018.01.13
  • Published : 2018.03.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to characterize the natural history of squeaking sounds that occur following total hip arthroplasty (THA) using ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces and its potential correlation with clinical and/or radiological results. Materials and Methods: This study included 47 patients who underwent THA between April 1999 and April 2005, and had at least 10 years of follow up from the time of the operation. Squeaking sounds were detected in 10 out of the 47 cases (21.3%). Squeaking-associated factors (i.e., cause, time of onset, inducing motions, and continuity of the sound) were assessed. Results: Squeaking sounds: i) were detected an average of 46.2 months after operation, ii) occurred more frequently in patients with a high body mass index (BMI) compared to those with low BMI, and iii) most frequently detected when deep flexion of hip joint followed extension. In all 10 cases, the squeaking sound remained through the follow up period; 6 cases experienced no change in frequency and pitch, 4 cases experienced a decrease in frequency and pitch over time. The cause(s) of changes to squeaking sounds could not be determined. Conclusion: The frequency and pitch of the squeaking sounds changed over time in a subset of patients. The squeaking sound did not appear to correlate with clinical results or survival of the prosthesis.

Keywords

References

  1. Hamadouche M, Boutin P, Daussange J, Bolander ME, Sedel L. Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 18.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:69-77.
  2. Bizot P, Nizard R, Hamadouche M, Hannouche D, Sedel L. Prevention of wear and osteolysis: alumina-on-alumina bearing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):85-93.
  3. Yoo JJ, Kim YM, Yoon KS, Koo KH, Song WS, Kim HJ. Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty. A five-year minimum follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:530-5. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.01753
  4. Ha YC, Kim SY, Kim HJ, Yoo JJ, Koo KH. Ceramic liner fracture after cementless alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;458:106-10.
  5. Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Hirata H, Uchida A. Ceramic acetabular liner fracture in total hip arthroplasty with a ceramic sandwich cup. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:658-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00193-1
  6. Park YS, Hwang SK, Choy WS, Kim YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ. Ceramic failure after total hip arthroplasty with an aluminaon-alumina bearing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:780-7.
  7. Buttaro MA, Zanotti G, Comba FM, Piccaluga F. Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic: analysis of complications in 939 consecutive cases followed for 2-10 years. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:480-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.032
  8. 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. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1388-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.028
  9. Salo PP, Honkanen PB, Ivanova I, Reito A, Pajamaki J, Eskelinen A. High prevalence of noise following Delta ceramicon-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B: 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.37612
  10. Wang W, Guo W, Yue D, et al. Fourth-generation ceramicon-ceramic total hip arthroplasty in patients of 55 years or younger: short-term results and complications analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127:2310-5.
  11. Stanat SJ, Capozzi JD. Squeaking in third- and fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:445-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.031
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00418
  13. Chevillotte C, Pibarot V, Carret JP, Bejui-Hugues J, Guyen O. Hip squeaking: a 10-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1008-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.11.024
  14. Gillespie JA, Kennedy JW, Patil SR, Meek DR. Noise production in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower patient satisfaction and hip scores. J Orthop. 2016;13:282-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.06.018
  15. Restrepo C, Matar WY, Parvizi J, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Natural history of squeaking after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2340-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1223-x
  16. Walter WL, O'toole GC, Walter WK, Ellis A, Zicat BA. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22: 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.06.018
  17. Owen D, Russell N, Chia A, Thomas M. The natural history of ceramic-on-ceramic prosthetic hip squeak and its impact on patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24:57-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1142-5
  18. Abdel MP, Heyse TJ, Elpers ME, et al. Ceramic liner fractures presenting as squeaking after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:27-31. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00737

Cited by

  1. Is patient satisfaction related to patient reported sounds from ceramic on ceramic total hip arthroplasty? A study of 265 hips vol.29, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02426-2
  2. A focused update on preventing ceramic fractures in hip arthroplasty : is the ‘cup’ half full? vol.b101, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.101b8.bjj-2019-0309.r1
  3. Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Nested Comparison Against Manual Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Study vol.28, pp.20, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-19-00328
  4. Direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in primary total hip replacement: comparison of minimum 2-year outcomes vol.31, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019881937