Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Ceramic Bearing Surfaces in Arthroplasty

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Ceramic Bearing Surfaces in Arthroplasty

Alumina and zirconia ceramics in total joint replacement: structure, properties, wear characteristics, fracture risk, and clinical outcomes

complete
Updated: 2025-12-25
High Yield Overview

CERAMIC BEARING SURFACES

Alumina | Zirconia | BIOLOX Delta | Wear Performance | Fracture Risk

99.7%alumina purity (Al2O3)
under 0.005mm/yearwear rate ceramic-on-ceramic
0.01-0.1%fracture rate modern ceramics
1-8%squeaking incidence

Ceramic Types in Arthroplasty

Alumina (Al2O3)
PatternFirst generation, pure alumina
TreatmentHigh hardness, low toughness, 0.2-1% fracture
Zirconia (ZrO2)
PatternHigher toughness, phase transformation risk
TreatmentDiscontinued due to in vivo aging
BIOLOX Delta
PatternAlumina matrix composite with zirconia
TreatmentBest balance: low wear, low fracture

Critical Must-Knows

  • Ceramics are crystalline materials with ionic/covalent bonding (high hardness, brittle)
  • Alumina (Al2O3): 99.7% purity, grain size under 2 microns, hot isostatic pressing
  • BIOLOX Delta: alumina matrix (82%) with zirconia platelets (17%), chromium oxide (0.5%)
  • Ceramic-on-ceramic wear rate: under 0.005mm/year (10x lower than XLPE)
  • Fracture risk modern ceramics: 0.01-0.1% (edge loading, impingement, neck impaction main causes)

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Ceramic hardness (Vickers 2000+) prevents scratching but causes brittleness
  • "
    Squeaking: 1-8% incidence, multifactorial (edge loading, stripe wear, neck impingement)
  • "
    Zirconia discontinued: tetragonal to monoclinic phase transformation causes roughening in vivo
  • "
    BIOLOX Delta: zirconia platelets stop crack propagation (higher fracture toughness)

Critical Ceramic Exam Points

Material Properties

Ionic/covalent bonding creates extremely hard but brittle material. Hardness over 2000 Vickers (10x metal). Grain size under 2 microns prevents crack initiation. Hot isostatic pressing removes porosity.

Wear Performance

Ultra-low wear: under 0.005mm/year. Ceramic-on-ceramic produces smallest particles (under 0.05 microns, below osteolysis threshold). Minimal biological reaction.

Fracture Risk

Modern ceramics: 0.01-0.1% fracture rate. Causes: edge loading (steep cup), impingement, neck impaction. BIOLOX Delta reduces risk via crack deflection by zirconia platelets.

Squeaking

1-8% incidence, usually benign. Causes: edge loading, stripe wear, lubrication failure, neck impingement. Most resolve spontaneously. Rarely requires revision.

At a Glance

Ceramic bearing surfaces offer the lowest wear rates (less than 0.005 mm/year) of any arthroplasty bearing, approximately 10× lower than highly crosslinked polyethylene, making them ideal for young, active patients. Modern alumina matrix composites (BIOLOX Delta) combine 99.7% alumina with zirconia platelets (17%) that deflect crack propagation, dramatically reducing fracture risk to 0.01-0.1%. Key concerns include squeaking (1-8%) from edge loading and lubrication failure, and catastrophic fracture requiring complete synovectomy at revision. Zirconia-only bearings were discontinued due to in vivo phase transformation causing surface roughening. Optimal component positioning is critical to avoid edge loading and stripe wear; steep cup inclination increases fracture risk.

Mnemonic

HARDCeramic Material Advantages

H
Hardness extreme
Vickers hardness over 2000 (prevents scratching, excellent wear resistance)
A
Abrasion resistant
Resists third-body wear from PMMA/metal debris (ultra-low wear rate)
R
Reaction minimal
Bioinert, particles too small for macrophage phagocytosis (under 0.05 microns)
D
Durable bearing
Wear rate under 0.005mm/year (10x lower than XLPE, approaching zero wear)

Memory Hook:Ceramics are HARD: Hardness extreme, Abrasion resistant, Reaction minimal, Durable bearing!

Mnemonic

SINECeramic Fracture Risk Factors

S
Steep cup inclination
Edge loading over 45° concentrates stress at rim (leading cause)
I
Impingement
Neck-liner contact creates point loading and rim fracture
N
Neck impaction
Forceful head impaction onto taper creates radial cracks
E
Edge chipping
Intraoperative handling damage initiates crack propagation

Memory Hook:Ceramic fracture SINE: Steep cup, Impingement, Neck impaction, Edge damage!

Mnemonic

AZCBIOLOX Delta Components

A
Alumina matrix 82%
Primary material providing hardness and wear resistance
Z
Zirconia platelets 17%
Crack deflection mechanism increases fracture toughness 50%
C
Chromium oxide 0.5%
Grain growth inhibitor during sintering, reduces grain size

Memory Hook:BIOLOX Delta is AZC: Alumina 82%, Zirconia 17%, Chromium 0.5%!

Overview and Introduction

Ceramic bearing surfaces offer ultra-low wear rates in total joint arthroplasty but carry small fracture risk. Alumina (Al2O3) and zirconia (ZrO2) ceramics provide extreme hardness and wear resistance. Modern alumina matrix composites like BIOLOX Delta balance wear performance with improved fracture toughness.

Historical Context

Evolution of Ceramic Bearings

1970s-1980s: First generation alumina

  • Pure alumina (Al2O3) introduced for ultra-low wear
  • Manufacturing limitations: large grain size, porosity
  • Fracture rates: 0.5-1% (unacceptably high)

1990s: Second generation alumina

  • Improved manufacturing: hot isostatic pressing
  • Grain size reduced to under 2 microns
  • Purity increased to 99.7%
  • Fracture rates: 0.1-0.2%

2000s: Zirconia and phase transformation problems

  • Zirconia (ZrO2) higher toughness than alumina
  • In vivo aging: tetragonal to monoclinic transformation
  • Surface roughening and accelerated wear
  • Zirconia heads discontinued

2000s-present: Alumina matrix composites

  • BIOLOX Delta: alumina (82%) with zirconia platelets (17%)
  • Zirconia stops crack propagation without phase transformation
  • Fracture rates: 0.01-0.1% (10-fold reduction)
  • Current standard for ceramic bearings

Principles of Ceramic Materials

Material Science Fundamentals

Bonding and Structure:

Ceramics have ionic and covalent bonding creating rigid crystal lattice:

  • Ionic bonds: Electrostatic attraction between Al3+ and O2- ions
  • Covalent character: Partial electron sharing increases bond strength
  • Crystal structure: Face-centered cubic (alumina) or tetragonal/monoclinic (zirconia)
  • Result: Extremely hard but brittle (bonds do not allow plastic deformation)

Manufacturing Process

Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP):

  1. Powder preparation: Ultra-pure Al2O3 powder (99.7% purity)
  2. Pressing: High pressure compaction into green body
  3. Sintering: Heating to 1600-1800C fuses grains
  4. Hot isostatic pressing: Simultaneous high temperature and pressure in argon eliminates porosity
  5. Machining: Diamond tools create precise geometry
  6. Polishing: Surface roughness under 0.01 microns

Quality control:

  • Grain size: under 2 microns (prevents crack initiation sites)
  • Porosity: eliminated by HIP (pores are crack initiation sites)
  • Surface finish: ultra-smooth (Ra under 0.01 microns)
  • Proof testing: each component stressed to verify no pre-existing flaws

Microstructural Anatomy

Crystal Structure and Grain Architecture

Ceramic bearing surfaces are polycrystalline materials with hierarchical microstructure:

Crystal Lattice (Atomic Level)

Alumina (Al2O3) Crystal Structure:

  • Face-centered cubic (FCC) arrangement of oxygen ions
  • Aluminum ions occupy two-thirds of octahedral interstitial sites
  • Corundum structure (same as ruby/sapphire, pure Al2O3 is colorless)
  • Ionic bonding: Al3+ cations, O2- anions (electrostatic attraction)
  • Partial covalent character: Electron sharing increases bond strength

Zirconia (ZrO2) Crystal Structure:

  • Polymorphic: Exists in three crystal phases
  • Monoclinic (stable at room temperature, brittle)
  • Tetragonal (metastable, stabilized by yttria Y2O3, tougher)
  • Cubic (high temperature only, less relevant)
  • Phase transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic causes 3-5% volume expansion (problem in pure zirconia bearings)

Grain Structure (Microscopic Level)

Polycrystalline Microstructure:

  • Ceramic bearing consists of millions of individual crystalline grains
  • Grain boundaries: Interfaces between adjacent grains (weak points, crack initiation sites)
  • Grain size: Critical quality parameter, determines mechanical properties

Grain Size Requirements:

  • Pure alumina: Grain size less than 2 microns (ideal: 1-1.5 microns)
  • BIOLOX Delta: Grain size less than 0.5 microns for alumina matrix
  • Significance: Smaller grains = fewer defects = higher strength
  • Hall-Petch relationship: Strength inversely proportional to square root of grain size

BIOLOX Delta Composite Architecture

BIOLOX Delta is an alumina matrix composite with engineered microstructure:

BIOLOX Delta Microstructural Components

ComponentVolume %Grain SizeFunctionMechanism
Alumina matrix (Al2O3)82%less than 0.5 micronsPrimary load-bearing phase, provides hardness and wear resistanceRigid ionic/covalent bonding resists deformation and wear
Zirconia platelets (ZrO2)17%1-2 microns (elongated platelets)Crack deflection, increases fracture toughness 50%Tetragonal to monoclinic transformation at crack tip absorbs energy, deflects crack path
Chromium oxide (Cr2O3)0.5%NanoscaleGrain growth inhibitor during sinteringPins grain boundaries, prevents excessive grain growth, maintains small grain size
Strontium oxide (SrO)0.5%TraceRadiographic marker for identificationRadiopaque, allows identification on X-ray if fracture occurs

Zirconia platelet orientation:

  • Platelets randomly oriented throughout alumina matrix
  • When crack propagates, encounters zirconia platelets
  • Transformation toughening: Stress at crack tip triggers tetragonal to monoclinic transformation in zirconia
  • Volume expansion (3-5%) creates compressive stress that opposes crack opening
  • Crack deflection: Crack forced to navigate around platelets (longer tortuous path dissipates energy)

Manufacturing Process and Microstructure Control

Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) Creates Optimized Microstructure:

Starting materials:

  • Ultra-pure Al2O3 powder (99.99% purity raw material)
  • Yttria-stabilized zirconia (Y-TZP) powder
  • Chromium oxide and strontium oxide additives
  • Mixing: Wet milling in ethanol for 24-48 hours ensures homogeneous distribution

Calcination: Heat to 1200C to remove organic binders and volatiles

Cold isostatic pressing (CIP):

  • Powder compacted at 200-400 MPa pressure
  • Forms "green body" (porous, fragile precursor)
  • Relative density: 50-60% (significant porosity remains)

Pre-sintering: Heat to 1000-1200C to increase strength for handling

High-temperature sintering:

  • Temperature: 1500-1800C (near melting point)
  • Duration: 2-4 hours
  • Diffusion-controlled densification: Atoms migrate to fill pore spaces
  • Grain growth: Grains grow during sintering (must be controlled)

Chromium oxide role: Inhibits grain boundary mobility, limits grain growth to less than 0.5 microns

Simultaneous heat and pressure:

  • Temperature: 1400-1600C
  • Pressure: 100-200 MPa argon gas
  • Duration: 2-4 hours
  • Eliminates residual porosity: Achieves 99.9+ percent theoretical density
  • Critical: Porosity is crack initiation site, HIP removes all pores greater than 1 micron

Result: Fully dense, homogeneous ceramic with optimized microstructure

Diamond machining:

  • Ceramic extremely hard (harder than any metal tool)
  • Requires diamond grinding wheels
  • Precision: Tolerances less than 10 microns

Surface polishing:

  • Diamond paste polishing
  • Target surface roughness: Ra less than 0.01 microns (mirror finish)
  • Significance: Smooth surface minimizes wear, prevents crack initiation

Defect Control and Quality Assurance

Potential microstructural defects:

Porosity (Eliminated by HIP)

Problem: Pores are stress concentrators, crack initiation sites

Types:

  • Closed pores: Isolated voids within grains or at grain boundaries
  • Open pores: Connected pathways (allow fluid ingress, weaken structure)

Control: Hot isostatic pressing eliminates pores greater than 1 micron. Final porosity less than 0.1% by volume.

Testing: X-ray computed tomography (CT) scans detect internal pores greater than 5 microns.

Large Grains (Controlled by Chromium Oxide)

Problem: Large grains contain more defects, lower strength (Hall-Petch relationship)

Abnormal grain growth: Some grains grow excessively during sintering (10-20x normal size)

Control: Chromium oxide pins grain boundaries, inhibits abnormal growth. Target: 95% of grains within 2x mean grain size.

Testing: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) measures grain size distribution. Reject if mean grain size greater than 2 microns (alumina) or greater than 0.5 microns (BIOLOX Delta).

Proof testing (quality control):

Every ceramic component undergoes proof testing before implantation:

  • Burst pressure test: Hydraulic pressure to 150% anticipated in vivo stress
  • Load to failure: Compressive load to 3-5x peak physiological load
  • Rationale: Pre-existing flaws will cause failure during proof test, defective components rejected
  • Pass rate: 99.5+ percent of manufactured components pass proof testing

Microstructural Quality Critical for Safety

Grain size, porosity, and phase purity directly determine fracture risk.

Ceramics fail by brittle fracture with no warning. Once crack initiates, propagates catastrophically (no plastic deformation to absorb energy). Manufacturing quality control is paramount to minimize defects.

BIOLOX Delta manufacturing improvements reduced fracture rate from 0.1-0.2% (pure alumina) to 0.01-0.1% (10-fold reduction) primarily through microstructure optimization: smaller grain size, lower porosity, crack-deflecting zirconia platelets.

Microstructure-Property Relationships

How Microstructure Determines Mechanical Properties

PropertyMicrostructural OriginClinical Significance
Hardness (Vickers 2000+)Ionic/covalent bonding prevents dislocation motion (no plastic deformation). Small grain size reduces defect density.Excellent wear resistance, prevents scratching from third-body debris, ultra-low wear rate less than 0.005 mm/year
Brittleness (fracture toughness 3-5 MPa√m)No dislocation motion, no energy dissipation via plastic deformation. Crack propagates through grains or along grain boundaries.Fracture risk 0.01-0.1% despite proof testing. Edge loading, impingement can cause catastrophic failure.
Wear resistanceHard grains resist abrasion. Small grain size provides smooth surface. Ionic bonding minimizes adhesive transfer.Wear particles less than 0.05 microns (too small for osteolysis). Wear rate 10x lower than XLPE.
Fracture toughness (BIOLOX Delta 50% higher)Zirconia platelets deflect cracks. Transformation toughening: stress-induced tetragonal to monoclinic transformation absorbs energy.Reduced fracture rate compared to pure alumina. Better tolerance of edge loading and impingement.

Examiner Favorite: Grain Size and Strength

Examiners frequently ask: Why is grain size critical in ceramic bearings?

Answer: Smaller grain size increases strength via Hall-Petch relationship:

  • Strength ∝ 1/√(grain size)
  • Mechanism: Grain boundaries impede crack propagation. More boundaries (smaller grains) = higher strength.
  • Modern ceramics: Pure alumina less than 2 microns, BIOLOX Delta less than 0.5 microns (50% smaller, significantly stronger)
  • Quality control: Reject components if mean grain size exceeds target (indicates poor manufacturing quality, higher fracture risk)

Classification

Classification by Ceramic Type

Ceramics used in arthroplasty classified by chemical composition:

Classification by Material Composition

TypeChemical FormulaKey PropertiesClinical UseCurrent Status
Alumina (Aluminum Oxide)Al2O3Extreme hardness (Vickers 2000+), brittle, excellent wear resistance, low toughness (3-4 MPa√m)First generation ceramic bearings (1970s), second generation with improved manufacturing (1990s)Historical (pure alumina), now superseded by alumina matrix composites
Zirconia (Zirconium Oxide)ZrO2 (yttria-stabilized Y-TZP)Higher toughness than alumina (5-7 MPa√m), phase transformation risk (tetragonal to monoclinic in vivo)Zirconia femoral heads on polyethylene (1990s-2000s)DISCONTINUED (in vivo aging causes surface roughening and accelerated wear)
Alumina Matrix Composite (BIOLOX Delta)82% Al2O3, 17% ZrO2, 0.5% Cr2O3, 0.5% SrOCombines alumina hardness with zirconia toughness (5-6 MPa√m), no phase transformationCurrent standard for ceramic bearings (2000s-present)CURRENT GOLD STANDARD (optimal balance wear resistance and fracture toughness)

Classification by Generation (Historical Evolution)

Pure Alumina - High Fracture Rate

Characteristics:

  • 99% pure alumina (Al2O3)
  • Large grain size (greater than 5 microns)
  • Significant porosity (manufacturing limitations)
  • Fracture rate: 0.5-1% (unacceptably high)

Outcome: Excellent wear rates but too many fractures, limited clinical adoption

Improved Alumina - Reduced Fracture

Manufacturing advances:

  • Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) eliminates porosity
  • Grain size reduced to less than 2 microns
  • Purity increased to 99.7%
  • Fracture rate: 0.1-0.2% (10-fold reduction)

Outcome: Increased adoption, especially in young active patients

Zirconia - Phase Transformation Problem

Rationale:

  • Zirconia (ZrO2) has higher fracture toughness than alumina
  • Expected to reduce fracture risk further

Problem discovered:

  • In vivo aging: Metastable tetragonal zirconia transforms to monoclinic phase in body (slow hydrothermal degradation)
  • Surface roughening: Phase transformation causes 3-5% volume expansion, creates rough surface
  • Accelerated wear: Roughened zirconia heads cause excessive polyethylene wear
  • Product recall: Zirconia femoral heads withdrawn from market

Outcome: DISCONTINUED (zirconia not suitable as pure bearing material)

BIOLOX Delta - Current Standard

Design principle:

  • Use zirconia as dispersed reinforcement (not bulk material)
  • Alumina matrix composite: 82% Al2O3, 17% ZrO2 platelets
  • Zirconia amount too small for bulk transformation, platelets provide crack deflection

Performance:

  • Fracture toughness: 50% higher than pure alumina (5-6 vs 3-4 MPa√m)
  • Fracture rate: 0.01-0.1% (10-fold reduction vs 2nd generation)
  • Wear rate: Unchanged (ultra-low less than 0.005 mm/year)
  • No phase transformation: Zirconia platelets stabilized by alumina matrix constraint

Outcome: CURRENT GOLD STANDARD for ceramic bearings

Classification by Bearing Combination

Ceramic Bearing Combinations in THA

CombinationWear RateFracture RiskSqueakingIndications
Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC)Ultra-low: less than 0.005 mm/year (approaching zero wear)0.01-0.1% (head and liner both can fracture)1-8% incidence (usually benign, rarely requires revision)Young active patients (less than 50-60 years), longest projected lifespan, desire lowest wear
Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE)Low: 0.02-0.04 mm/year (lower than metal-on-XLPE)Head fracture only (0.01-0.05%), liner cannot fractureNone (no ceramic-on-ceramic contact)Compromise option: Lower fracture concern than CoC, lower wear than MoXLPE, no squeaking
Ceramic-on-conventional PEModerate: 0.05-0.08 mm/year (similar to metal-on-PE)Head fracture onlyNoneHISTORICAL ONLY (discontinued, no benefit over metal-on-XLPE, avoid)
Zirconia-on-PEVariable (initially low, increases after phase transformation)Head fracture risk, phase transformation causes rougheningNoneDISCONTINUED (in vivo aging, product recall in 2000s)

Key decision factors:

Choose Ceramic-on-Ceramic When:

  • Young patient (less than 50-60 years, projected lifespan greater than 30 years)
  • High activity level (desire lowest possible wear for longevity)
  • Metal sensitivity (alternative to metal-on-XLPE)
  • Patient accepts small squeaking risk (1-8%, usually benign)
  • Good bone quality (allows optimal cup positioning to minimize fracture risk)

Choose Ceramic-on-XLPE When:

  • Older patient (60-75 years, moderate activity)
  • Squeaking concern (patient not willing to accept any squeaking risk)
  • Fracture concern (obesity, very high activity, high-impact sports)
  • Difficult acetabular anatomy (dysplasia, revision, may require steep cup)
  • Compromise option: Better wear than MoXLPE, no squeaking, lower fracture risk than CoC

Advanced Classification: Material Properties

Detailed comparison of ceramic material classes:

Material Property Comparison

Property2nd Gen Alumina3rd Gen Zirconia (Y-TZP)4th Gen BIOLOX DeltaClinical Significance
Grain sizeless than 2 micronsless than 0.5 micronsless than 0.5 microns (alumina phase)Smaller grain size increases strength (Hall-Petch relationship)
Vickers hardness2000-22001200-1400 (lower than alumina)2000-2200 (alumina matrix dominates)Higher hardness provides better wear resistance, scratch resistance
Fracture toughness3-4 MPa√m (brittle)5-7 MPa√m (toughest, but unstable)5-6 MPa√m (balanced)Higher toughness reduces fracture risk from edge loading, impingement
Phase stabilityStable (no transformation)UNSTABLE (t to m transformation in vivo)Stable (platelets constrained by matrix)Phase transformation in zirconia causes roughening, product recall
Porosityless than 0.1% (HIP)less than 0.1% (HIP)less than 0.05% (advanced HIP)Lower porosity reduces crack initiation sites

Classification by Failure Mode

Understanding how different ceramics fail guides clinical decision-making:

Pure alumina (2nd generation):

  • Fracture rate: 0.1-0.2%
  • Mechanism: Brittle fracture from edge loading, impingement, or neck impaction
  • Propagation: Once crack initiates, propagates catastrophically (no plastic deformation)
  • Clinical presentation: Sudden pain, grinding, loss of function
  • Management: Revision with complete synovectomy, remove all ceramic debris

BIOLOX Delta (4th generation):

  • Fracture rate: 0.01-0.1% (10-fold lower)
  • Mechanism: Same brittle fracture, but zirconia platelets deflect cracks, increase toughness
  • Improved tolerance: Withstands higher edge loading stress before fracture
  • Still catastrophic: Once fracture occurs, management same as pure alumina

Stripe wear (edge loading):

  • Occurs when cup positioned too steep (greater than 50-55° inclination)
  • Visible wear stripe at liner equator (concentrated contact zone)
  • Wear rate increases: From less than 0.005 to 0.01-0.02 mm/year in stripe region
  • Squeaking: Roughened wear stripe causes acoustic friction
  • Not catastrophic: Gradual wear, may remain asymptomatic for years

Prevention: Optimal cup positioning (40° inclination, 15° anteversion, avoid greater than 50°)

In vivo aging of pure zirconia:

  • Mechanism: Hydrothermal degradation in body fluids (moisture-assisted transformation)
  • Tetragonal to monoclinic: Metastable t-ZrO2 transforms to stable m-ZrO2 over time
  • Volume expansion: 3-5% expansion creates surface upheaval (roughening)
  • Accelerated wear: Rough zirconia head abrades polyethylene liner (wear rate 0.1-0.3 mm/year)
  • Timeline: Transformation detectable at 2-5 years, significant roughening at 5-10 years

Why BIOLOX Delta does not fail this way:

  • Zirconia content only 17% (vs 100% in pure zirconia)
  • Matrix constraint: Alumina matrix physically constrains zirconia platelets, prevents expansion
  • No in vivo aging: BIOLOX Delta shows no phase transformation after 20+ years clinical use

Classification by Regulatory Status (IMPORTANT for Exam)

Regulatory Status and Clinical Availability

Ceramic TypeFDA StatusAustralian TGA StatusAOANJRR DataCurrent Use
1st generation aluminaHistorical approval (no longer marketed)HistoricalNot tracked separately (too old)None (historical only)
2nd generation aluminaApproved but supersededApproved but not commonly usedTracked (low volume)Rare (superseded by BIOLOX Delta)
Zirconia (Y-TZP)WITHDRAWN (product recall 2001)WITHDRAWNHistorical data only (cautionary)NONE (withdrawn from market)
BIOLOX DeltaFDA approved 2003, extensive post-market surveillanceTGA approved, widely used in AustraliaExcellent survivorship data, revision rate 4-5% at 10 yearsCURRENT STANDARD (90%+ of ceramic bearings)

Examiner Trap: Zirconia Confusion

Examiners may ask about zirconia to test knowledge of the phase transformation problem.

TRAP: Zirconia has higher toughness than alumina, so why is it not used?

ANSWER: Pure zirconia femoral heads were withdrawn from market due to in vivo aging:

  • Hydrothermal degradation causes tetragonal to monoclinic phase transformation
  • 3-5% volume expansion roughens surface
  • Accelerated polyethylene wear (product recall 2001)

KEY POINT: Zirconia IS used successfully in BIOLOX Delta (17% as dispersed platelets, not bulk material). Matrix constraint prevents bulk transformation, platelets provide crack deflection without aging.

Clinical Relevance and Applications

Indications for Ceramic Bearings

Ideal Candidates

  • Young active patients: Longest projected lifespan (ultra-low wear)
  • Metal sensitivity: Alternative to metal-on-XLPE
  • Revision for osteolysis: Minimize future wear particles
  • Patient preference: Desire for lowest possible wear

Relative Contraindications

  • High fracture risk: Obese, very active, high-impact sports
  • Dysplasia requiring steep cup: Edge loading increases fracture risk
  • Revision with bone loss: Difficulty achieving optimal cup position
  • Cost sensitivity: Ceramic bearings more expensive than XLPE

Bearing Combinations

Ceramic Bearing Options

BearingWear RateFracture RiskSqueakingClinical Use
Ceramic-on-ceramicunder 0.005 mm/year0.01-0.1%1-8%Young active patients, optimal choice
Ceramic-on-XLPE0.02-0.04 mm/yearHead fracture onlyNoneCompromise option, lower fracture concern
Ceramic-on-conventional PE0.05-0.08 mm/yearHead fracture onlyNoneHistorical, avoid (no benefit over metal-on-XLPE)

Ceramic-on-XLPE rationale:

  • Lower wear than metal-on-XLPE (ceramic head scratch resistant)
  • No liner fracture risk (only head can fracture)
  • No squeaking
  • Trade-off: higher wear than ceramic-on-ceramic but lower fracture concern

Ceramic Biomechanics and Wear

Wear Mechanisms

Ceramic-on-ceramic wear is primarily adhesive:

Wear Mechanisms by Bearing Type

MechanismMetal-on-XLPECeramic-on-CeramicSignificance
Adhesive wearModerateVery lowCeramic hardness prevents material transfer
Abrasive wearHigh (third-body)Very lowCeramic resists scratching from PMMA/metal debris
Fatigue wearModerate (XLPE)NoneCeramic does not fatigue under cyclic loading

Stripe wear phenomenon:

  • Occurs when cup positioned too steep (edge loading)
  • Visible wear stripe on ceramic liner at equator
  • Can cause squeaking (roughened surface)
  • Prevention: optimal cup positioning (40° inclination, 15° anteversion)

Particle Size and Biological Response

Why ceramic particles do not cause osteolysis:

  • Size: Under 0.05 microns (too small for macrophage phagocytosis)
  • Clearance: Particles cleared by lymphatics without macrophage activation
  • Inert: Even if phagocytosed, minimal cytokine response
  • Clinical: No osteolysis reported with well-functioning ceramic bearings

Investigations

Preoperative Assessment for Ceramic Bearing Selection

Investigations to determine suitability for ceramic bearings:

Radiographic Assessment

Acetabular morphology:

  • AP pelvis radiograph: Assess acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle, acetabular index)
  • Dysplasia concerns: Severe dysplasia may require steep cup positioning (greater than 50° inclination), which increases ceramic fracture risk from edge loading
  • Bone stock assessment: Adequate bone for secure cup fixation at optimal position (40° inclination, 15° anteversion)

Femoral morphology:

  • Proximal femoral geometry: Neck-shaft angle, femoral offset, version
  • Impingement risk: Coxa vara, retroverted femur increase impingement risk

Decision point: If anatomy requires steep cup or high impingement risk, consider ceramic-on-XLPE instead of ceramic-on-ceramic to reduce fracture risk.

Patient Factors Assessment

Activity level:

  • Young active patients (less than 50-60 years, high activity): Ceramic-on-ceramic for lowest wear
  • Moderate activity (60-75 years): Ceramic-on-XLPE acceptable alternative

Body mass index (BMI):

  • Obesity (BMI greater than 35): Higher joint reaction forces, increased ceramic fracture risk, consider ceramic-on-XLPE

Patient expectations:

  • Squeaking tolerance: Discuss 1-8% squeaking risk with ceramic-on-ceramic
  • Longevity priority: Ceramic-on-ceramic if patient prioritizes longest possible implant lifespan

Intraoperative Quality Inspection

Critical quality checks before implantation:

Inspect ceramic components for defects:

  • Cracks or chips: Linear surface cracks, edge chips (reject if present)
  • Color changes: Discoloration indicates manufacturing defect
  • Surface irregularities: Scratches, pits, rough areas

If ANY defect visible, REJECT component (catastrophic fracture risk)

Sterile packaging:

  • Check expiration date
  • Ensure seal intact (no moisture ingress)
  • If package compromised, DO NOT use (sterility and quality not guaranteed)

Traceability:

  • Document lot numbers of femoral head and acetabular liner
  • Rationale: If manufacturer recall occurs, allows identification of affected implants
  • Enter into implant registry (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, AOANJRR)

NEVER Use Ceramic with Visible Defects

Even microscopic defects can propagate to catastrophic fracture.

Ceramic components undergo proof testing at manufacturer, but intraoperative handling damage can create new flaws:

  • Dropping component on hard surface
  • Forceful impaction with metal instruments
  • Contact between two ceramic surfaces (liner to liner)

Surgeon inspection is last line of defense. If in doubt, reject component and use new one.

Postoperative Radiographic Surveillance

Imaging protocol for ceramic bearings:

Postoperative Imaging Schedule

TimepointRadiographsPurposeWhat to Look For
Immediate postoperative (PACU or day 1)AP pelvis, lateral hipDocument baseline component position, detect intraoperative fractureCup inclination (target 40°), anteversion (target 15°), leg length, offset. Look for ceramic fragments (white radio-dense particles)
6 weeksAP pelvis, lateral hipAssess early integration, rule out early fracture or dislocationCup position stable, no radiolucent lines, no ceramic fragments, head-liner congruent
1 yearAP pelvis, lateral hipAssess fixation, early wear (stripe wear visible on lateral radiograph)Radiolucent lines (concern for loosening), stripe wear (linear radiolucency at equator), osteolysis (rare with ceramic)
Annually thereafterAP pelvis (consider lateral only if symptomatic)Long-term surveillance for wear, loosening, osteolysisProgressive radiolucent lines, component migration, osteolytic lesions (very rare with well-functioning ceramic bearings)

Radiographic signs of ceramic complications:

Stripe Wear (Edge Loading)

Radiographic appearance:

  • Lateral radiograph: Linear radiolucency at equator of acetabular liner
  • Corresponds to zone of concentrated contact from steep cup (edge loading)
  • May see visible wear stripe on retrieved components

Significance: Indicates suboptimal cup position. Wear rate higher in stripe region (0.01-0.02 mm/year vs less than 0.005 mm/year). May progress to squeaking. Rarely requires revision unless severe wear or symptomatic.

Cup position culprit: Typically inclination greater than 50-55°, excessive anteversion or retroversion.

Ceramic Fracture

Radiographic appearance:

  • Radio-dense ceramic fragments: Small white particles in joint space, surrounding soft tissues
  • Component separation: Gap between femoral head and neck taper, or liner separated from metal shell
  • Metallic wear: If ceramic fractured, metal-on-metal contact (head taper against metal shell) creates metallic debris cloud

Presentation: Usually sudden onset pain, grinding, inability to weight bear. May have audible "pop" at time of fracture.

Management: Urgent revision with complete synovectomy to remove all ceramic debris (acts as third-body abrasive). NEVER use polyethylene liner with retained ceramic debris (accelerated wear).

Investigation of Squeaking

Squeaking: Audible noise from ceramic-on-ceramic bearing (1-8% incidence):

Characterize squeaking:

  • Timing: With specific movements (stairs, sitting-to-stand, getting out of car), constant, intermittent
  • Loudness: Audible to patient only, or others in room
  • Pain association: Squeaking alone (benign), or with pain (concern for impingement, edge loading)
  • Functional impact: Patient embarrassment, activity limitation, or asymptomatic

Physical examination:

  • Provocative maneuvers: Reproduce squeak with hip flexion-adduction-internal rotation (impingement position)
  • Range of motion: Assess for impingement (flexion less than 90°, painful terminal flexion)

AP pelvis and lateral hip radiographs:

  • Cup position: Measure inclination (normal 30-50°, steep if greater than 50°) and anteversion (normal 5-25°)
  • Stripe wear: Linear radiolucency at liner equator (indicates edge loading)
  • Impingement: Femoral neck-acetabular liner proximity, anterior or posterior impingement zones
  • Component loosening: Radiolucent lines, migration (rare cause of squeaking)

CT scan (if radiographs inconclusive):

  • More accurate cup version measurement (radiographic anteversion can be misleading)
  • 3D impingement analysis

Most squeaking is benign and resolves spontaneously:

  • Observation: If asymptomatic or mild, reassure patient, observe
  • Activity modification: Avoid provocative movements if possible
  • Revision rarely indicated: Only if severe functional impairment, pain, or progressive stripe wear

Revision considered if:

  • Squeaking with pain (suggests impingement or edge loading)
  • Cup malposition (greater than 50-55° inclination, excessive anteversion)
  • Progressive stripe wear on serial radiographs
  • Severe functional or psychological impact (patient-driven decision)

Retrieval Analysis (Research/Registry)

Analysis of retrieved ceramic components provides insights into wear and failure mechanisms:

Retrieval Analysis Techniques

TechniqueInformation ObtainedKey Findings from Literature
Visual and optical microscopySurface wear patterns, stripe wear, fracture origin, edge loading zonesStripe wear visible in 20-30% of retrievals (asymptomatic). Fracture usually initiates at rim (edge loading) or taper (impaction crack).
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)Microstructural features, grain pullout, crack propagation pathsCrack propagation intergranular (along grain boundaries) or transgranular (through grains). BIOLOX Delta shows crack deflection by zirconia platelets.
Surface profilometryQuantitative wear measurement, surface roughnessUnworn regions: Ra less than 0.01 microns. Stripe wear regions: Ra 0.05-0.1 microns (roughened). Total linear wear typically less than 50 microns at 10+ years (ultra-low).
X-ray diffraction (XRD)Phase composition, detection of zirconia transformationPure zirconia heads show 10-20% monoclinic phase at surface (in vivo aging). BIOLOX Delta shows NO monoclinic phase (stable).

Radiographic Cup Measurement

Examiners may show postoperative radiograph and ask about cup position.

Key measurements on AP pelvis:

  • Inclination (abduction): Angle between cup opening and horizontal. Measure using transverse acetabular ligament or ischial tuberosities as horizontal reference. Target: 40° (range 30-50°).
  • Anteversion: More difficult on AP radiograph alone. Can estimate using ellipse method (ratio of short to long axis of opening ellipse correlates with version). CT or cross-table lateral gives accurate version. Target: 15° (range 5-25°).

Lewinnek safe zone: Inclination 30-50°, anteversion 5-25°. Optimal for ceramic: 40° inclination, 15° anteversion (minimizes edge loading and impingement).

Steep cup (greater than 50°): Increases edge loading, stripe wear, squeaking, and fracture risk. If identified postoperatively, counsel patient about increased surveillance, activity modification if symptomatic.

Management

Components of a total hip arthroplasty with ceramic bearing surface
Click to expand
Total hip arthroplasty components demonstrating ceramic bearing technology. Left: Titanium femoral stem with polished taper neck for head impaction. Center: Alumina ceramic femoral head showing the characteristic cream/ivory color of high-purity alumina (Al2O3). The taper bore connects to the stem neck via Morse taper fixation. The ceramic head provides ultra-low wear articulation (less than 0.005 mm/year) due to extreme hardness (Vickers greater than 2000). Right: Polyethylene acetabular liner - in ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings, the ceramic head articulates against cross-linked polyethylene, reducing wear compared to metal-on-polyethylene. Modern ceramic-on-ceramic configurations use ceramic liners instead, achieving even lower wear rates but with squeaking and fracture considerations.Credit: Wikimedia Commons - Nuno Nogueira (Public Domain)

Decision-Making Algorithm for Ceramic Bearing Selection

Systematic approach to choosing appropriate bearing surface:

Age less than 50-60 years, high activity:

  • Recommendation: Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) FIRST CHOICE
  • Rationale: Lowest wear rate (less than 0.005 mm/year), longest projected implant lifespan (30-40 years)
  • Alternative: Ceramic-on-XLPE if patient not willing to accept squeaking risk (1-8%)

Age 60-75 years, moderate activity:

  • Recommendation: Ceramic-on-XLPE OR ceramic-on-ceramic (shared decision-making)
  • Rationale: Both provide acceptable longevity for this age group. CoXLPE avoids squeaking, CoC provides lowest wear.

Age greater than 75 years, low activity:

  • Recommendation: Metal-on-XLPE or ceramic-on-XLPE (ceramic not necessary)
  • Rationale: Projected lifespan 10-15 years, wear rate less critical, cost considerations favor metal-on-XLPE

Normal acetabular anatomy:

  • Can achieve optimal cup position (40° inclination, 15° anteversion): Ceramic-on-ceramic suitable

Acetabular dysplasia (Crowe I-II):

  • Mild dysplasia: Can usually achieve safe cup position with good coverage: Ceramic-on-ceramic suitable
  • Severe dysplasia (Crowe III-IV): May require steep cup (greater than 50°), medialized socket, or structural graft: Consider ceramic-on-XLPE (lower fracture risk with steep cup)

High impingement risk (coxa vara, retroverted femur, short femoral neck):

  • Consider ceramic-on-XLPE: Lower fracture risk if impingement occurs

Obesity (BMI greater than 35):

  • Higher joint reaction forces increase ceramic fracture risk
  • Recommendation: Ceramic-on-XLPE (lower fracture risk) OR metal-on-XLPE

Very high-impact sports (running, contact sports):

  • Peak loads increase fracture risk
  • Shared decision: Discuss risk-benefit of CoC (lowest wear, small fracture risk) vs CoXLPE (slightly higher wear, lower fracture risk)

Squeaking intolerance:

  • Patient not willing to accept 1-8% squeaking risk: Ceramic-on-XLPE (no squeaking)

Metal sensitivity:

  • History of metal allergy: Ceramic-on-ceramic or ceramic-on-XLPE (both avoid metal bearing surface)

Non-Operative Management (Rare)

Ceramic bearings are implant materials, not conditions requiring treatment. However, complications may be managed conservatively:

Squeaking (Conservative Management)

Indications for observation:

  • Squeaking alone, no pain
  • Full range of motion
  • Cup position within safe zone (30-50° inclination, 5-25° anteversion)
  • No progressive stripe wear on serial radiographs

Conservative measures:

  • Reassurance: Explain benign nature, low revision rate (less than 0.1%)
  • Activity modification: Avoid provocative movements (deep flexion, pivoting) if possible
  • Observation: Serial radiographs every 6-12 months to monitor for progressive wear
  • Expect improvement: Many cases resolve spontaneously as bearing surfaces conform

When to consider surgery: Severe functional impact, progressive pain, cup malposition with progressive stripe wear

Incidental Radiographic Findings

Asymptomatic stripe wear:

  • Management: Observation, patient counseling about potential for future squeaking
  • Surveillance: Annual radiographs to assess progression
  • Activity advice: Avoid high-impact activities if possible (may accelerate wear)

Cup malposition (greater than 50° inclination) identified postoperatively:

  • If asymptomatic: Observation, counsel about increased surveillance
  • If symptomatic (squeaking, pain, limited ROM): Consider revision to optimize position

Management of Ceramic Fracture (Intraoperative and Postoperative)

Ceramic fracture is a surgical emergency requiring urgent revision:

NEVER Use Polyethylene After Ceramic Fracture

Ceramic debris acts as third-body abrasive causing catastrophic polyethylene wear.

If ceramic fracture occurs and ceramic debris cannot be completely removed (which is nearly impossible), using polyethylene liner results in wear rates 10-100x normal. Revision to ceramic-on-ceramic or constrained liner is mandatory.

If ceramic fracture occurs during implantation (head fracture during impaction, liner fracture during seating):

Immediate actions:

  • STOP procedure, do not proceed with fractured component
  • Copious irrigation: 9-12 liters normal saline to wash out ceramic particles
  • Remove all visible fragments: Inspect joint capsule, muscles, soft tissues
  • Change gloves, gowns, drapes: Prevent reintroduction of ceramic particles
  • Replace ALL components: New ceramic head AND liner (even if only one fractured)
  • Consider larger head size: Provides more clearance, reduces risk of repeat fracture

If extensive contamination:

  • Abort ceramic bearing: Switch to metal-on-XLPE (ceramic debris present, cannot use ceramic-on-polyethylene)
  • Document thoroughly: Operative note must detail fracture, irrigation, component changes

Patient presents with sudden onset pain, grinding, inability to weight bear after previous ceramic-on-ceramic THA:

Diagnosis confirmation:

  • Radiographs: Look for radio-dense ceramic fragments, component separation, metallic debris cloud
  • CT scan: Better visualization of fragment distribution
  • Metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS) MRI: Assess soft tissue involvement, synovitis

Surgical planning:

  • Revision within 2-4 weeks (urgent, not emergent unless severe pain/instability)
  • Consent patient: Explain need for complete synovectomy, possible component retention vs exchange, risk of incomplete debris removal
  • Implant planning: New ceramic-on-ceramic (preferred if acetabular component stable) OR constrained liner if instability

Systematic approach to ceramic fracture revision:

Step 1: Exposure and Synovectomy

  • Extended approach: Consider extensile approach for complete access
  • Complete synovectomy: Remove ALL synovium (ceramic particles embedded in synovium act as abrasive)
  • Inspect surrounding tissues: Psoas, gluteus medius, capsule (may harbor fragments)

Step 2: Irrigation

  • Copious pulsed lavage: 12-15 liters normal saline with pulsed lavage device
  • Change irrigation tips frequently: Prevent reintroducing particles

Step 3: Component Assessment

  • Femoral stem: If well-fixed and correctly positioned, retain stem, exchange head only
  • Acetabular shell: If well-fixed, retain shell, exchange liner only
  • If malpositioned: Revise to correct position (prevent recurrent edge loading fracture)

Step 4: New Bearing Selection

  • FIRST CHOICE: New ceramic-on-ceramic (BIOLOX Delta head and liner)
  • Rationale: Ceramic resists scratching from residual ceramic particles better than polyethylene
  • Head size: Use same or larger size (larger head provides more clearance)
  • ALTERNATIVE (if ceramic unavailable or patient preference): Dual mobility construct with metal head (resists third-body wear better than standard PE)

Step 5: Closure and Postoperative Management

  • Closed suction drain: Remove particulate debris in early postoperative period (48 hours)
  • Postoperative radiographs: Document component position, assess for residual fragments

Management Algorithm for Component Selection

Bearing Selection by Clinical Scenario

Clinical ScenarioRecommended BearingRationaleAlternative
Primary THA, age less than 50, normal anatomyCeramic-on-ceramic (BIOLOX Delta)Lowest wear rate, longest lifespan, optimal choice for young active patientsCeramic-on-XLPE if patient declines squeaking risk
Primary THA, age 60-75, moderate activityCeramic-on-XLPE OR ceramic-on-ceramic (shared decision)Both provide acceptable longevity. CoXLPE avoids squeak, CoC lower wear.Metal-on-XLPE if cost consideration
Primary THA, severe dysplasia requiring steep cupCeramic-on-XLPESteep cup increases edge loading and fracture risk with CoCMetal-on-XLPE acceptable
Primary THA, obesity BMI greater than 35Ceramic-on-XLPE OR metal-on-XLPEHigher joint forces increase ceramic fracture riskDual mobility if instability concern
Revision THA for ceramic fractureNew ceramic-on-ceramic (larger head)Ceramic resists third-body wear from residual particles better than PEDual mobility with metal head if ceramic unavailable
Revision THA for osteolysis (metal-on-PE)Ceramic-on-ceramic OR ceramic-on-XLPEMinimize future particle generation to prevent recurrent osteolysisDual mobility if instability concern
Metal sensitivity/allergyCeramic-on-ceramic OR ceramic-on-XLPEAvoid metal bearing surface (metal shells unavoidable but lower debris than bearing)Oxinium (oxidized zirconium) on XLPE

Shared Decision-Making Framework

Important discussion points when offering ceramic bearings:

Discuss Benefits of Ceramic-on-Ceramic

  • Lowest wear rate: Less than 0.005 mm/year (10x lower than XLPE, approaching zero wear)
  • No osteolysis: Particles too small (less than 0.05 microns) to trigger macrophage response
  • Longest projected lifespan: Registry data shows excellent survivorship to 20+ years
  • Ideal for young patients: Minimizes lifetime revision burden (may avoid revision entirely)
  • Scratch resistant: Resists third-body wear from PMMA cement or metal debris

Discuss Risks of Ceramic-on-Ceramic

  • Squeaking: 1-8% incidence, usually benign, rarely requires revision (less than 0.1%)
  • Fracture: 0.01-0.1% with modern BIOLOX Delta (very rare, but catastrophic if occurs)
  • Revision complexity: If fracture occurs, requires complete synovectomy, cannot use polyethylene
  • Cost: More expensive than metal-on-XLPE (patient may bear difference if private)
  • Longevity advantage uncertain: XLPE also shows excellent long-term results, unclear if ceramic provides additional benefit beyond 20-30 years

Framework for discussion:

  1. Explain options: Ceramic-on-ceramic (lowest wear, small squeak risk), ceramic-on-XLPE (low wear, no squeak, lower fracture risk), metal-on-XLPE (standard, proven, lowest cost)
  2. Elicit patient priorities: Longevity vs cost, willingness to accept squeak risk, activity level
  3. Provide recommendation based on age, activity, anatomy, patient priorities
  4. Shared decision: Patient makes final choice after understanding trade-offs

Examiner Favorite: Ceramic Fracture Management

Examiners frequently ask: Patient presents with ceramic fracture. How do you manage the revision?

Key points for complete answer:

  1. Confirm diagnosis: Radiographs (radio-dense fragments), CT scan (fragment distribution)
  2. Surgical planning: Urgent revision (2-4 weeks), consent for synovectomy and component exchange
  3. Intraoperative:
    • Complete synovectomy (ALL synovium removed, embedded particles)
    • Copious irrigation (12-15 liters)
    • Assess component fixation: Retain well-fixed components, exchange only bearing surfaces if possible
  4. New bearing: NEW CERAMIC-ON-CERAMIC (resists third-body wear from residual particles)
  5. CRITICAL: NEVER use polyethylene after ceramic fracture (catastrophic third-body wear)
  6. Alternative: Dual mobility with metal head (if ceramic unavailable)

TRAP: Saying "use polyethylene liner" after ceramic fracture = WRONG, automatic fail

Surgical Technique

Key Principles for Ceramic Bearing Implantation

Ceramic bearings require meticulous technique to minimize fracture risk:

Critical Safety Principles

Ceramic is brittle - fracture risk from improper handling.

Three golden rules:

  1. Gentle impaction: Use controlled, gradual force (NO forceful strikes)
  2. Optimal positioning: Cup 40° inclination, 15° anteversion (minimize edge loading)
  3. Avoid contamination: Keep ceramic surfaces clean and dry, no metal-on-ceramic contact

Acetabular Cup and Ceramic Liner Insertion

Reaming:

  • Sequential reaming to appropriate size (typically 1-2mm under-reaming for press-fit cup)
  • Hemisphere exposed: Aim for 40-45° inclination during reaming (guides final cup position)
  • Medial wall intact: Avoid excessive medialization (decreases cup stability)

Trial cup position:

  • Insert trial cup, assess inclination and anteversion with alignment guide
  • Target: 40° inclination, 15° anteversion (Lewinnek safe zone 30-50°, 5-25°)
  • Critical for ceramic: Avoid greater than 50° inclination (edge loading risk)

Impaction technique:

  • Line-to-line or 1-2mm press-fit (adequate for cementless fixation)
  • Use cup impactor aligned with desired cup position vector
  • Controlled sequential blows to seat cup (avoid excessive force causing acetabular fracture)
  • Assess seating: Cup should be flush with prepared acetabulum, no gaps

Supplemental fixation (if needed):

  • Screw fixation: 1-2 screws in posterosuperior quadrant if poor bone quality or revision
  • Safe zones for screws: Posterior column (avoid sciatic notch), ilium superior to dome

Inspect ceramic liner:

  • Visual inspection: Check for cracks, chips, discoloration (reject if ANY defect visible)
  • Keep clean: Ceramic liner must remain dry and clean (no blood, saline, cement)

Seating the liner:

  • Taper alignment: Ceramic liner has metal backing with Morse taper that locks into metal shell
  • Align orientation: Some liners have anti-rotation features or locking mechanism, ensure correct orientation
  • Gentle hand pressure FIRST: Press liner into shell with hand pressure, should seat partially
  • Impaction with liner impactor: Use manufacturer-provided plastic or soft metal impactor
    • CRITICAL: NEVER use metal instrument directly on ceramic surface
    • Controlled gentle blows: Gradual impaction until liner fully seated (hear/feel change in pitch when seated)
    • Avoid excessive force: Liner should seat with 3-5 gentle taps, NOT forceful strikes

Verify seating:

  • Visual inspection: Liner should be flush with metal shell, no gaps
  • Palpate rim: Run finger around liner edge, should be smooth transition from liner to metal shell
  • Stability: Gentle attempt to displace liner (should be rock-solid, no movement)

Common Liner Seating Errors

Errors that cause liner fracture:

  1. Trapped debris: Blood or soft tissue between liner and metal shell taper prevents full seating, creates stress concentration

    • Prevention: Clean and dry taper surfaces before liner insertion
  2. Forceful impaction: Excessive force fractures ceramic liner

    • Prevention: Gradual controlled blows, if liner not seating easily after 5-6 taps, remove and inspect for debris
  3. Wrong impactor: Metal instrument directly on ceramic

    • Prevention: ONLY use manufacturer-provided plastic/soft metal liner impactor
  4. Incorrect orientation: Liner rotated wrong direction, anti-rotation features misaligned

    • Prevention: Check orientation marks before impaction

Femoral Stem and Ceramic Head Insertion

Femoral preparation:

  • Sequential broaching to appropriate stem size
  • Anteversion target: 10-15° (combined anteversion 25-30° when added to cup)
  • Version assessment: Use trial stem with alignment guide to confirm version

Stem insertion:

  • Standard cementless or cemented technique depending on bone quality and stem design
  • Achieve stable fixation: Axial and rotational stability critical

Inspect ceramic head:

  • Visual inspection: Check for cracks, chips, surface irregularities (reject if ANY defect)
  • Keep clean and DRY: Ceramic head bore must be completely dry (NO saline, blood, or fluid)
    • Wet taper reduces friction: Can cause head to slide down taper excessively during impaction, creating radial cracks

Prepare femoral taper:

  • Dry and clean: Wipe taper with dry sponge (NO saline)
  • Remove debris: Any metal debris, cement, or bone fragments will prevent proper seating

Impaction technique:

  • Align head: Place ceramic head onto taper, ensure correct orientation (if head has offset or grooves)
  • Gentle controlled impaction: Use manufacturer-provided plastic head impactor
    • CRITICAL: NEVER strike ceramic head directly with metal mallet
    • Gradual seating: 2-4 gentle taps, increase force gradually
    • Listen for pitch change: Fully seated head produces higher-pitch sound when struck (vs dull thud when unseated)
    • Avoid excessive force: Head should seat with 3-5 controlled blows, NOT forceful strikes

Verify seating:

  • Pull test: Gentle attempt to remove head (should not budge)
  • Rotation test: Attempt to rotate head on taper (should be completely stable, no rotation)
  • Visual assessment: Gap between head base and neck shoulder should be minimal (typically less than 1mm)

Head size selection:

  • Larger heads: Greater range of motion, lower dislocation risk, BUT higher edge loading forces
  • Recommended sizes: 32mm, 36mm (28mm smaller heads higher dislocation risk, 40mm+ higher edge loading risk)
  • Match liner: Head diameter must match ceramic liner inner diameter exactly

Critical Head Impaction Errors

Errors causing ceramic head fracture:

  1. Wet taper: Fluid on taper reduces friction, head slides excessively, creates radial cracks

    • Solution: ALWAYS dry taper completely before head insertion
  2. Forceful impaction: Excessive force creates radial cracks in head bore

    • Solution: Controlled gentle blows, if head not seating after 4-5 taps, remove and inspect for debris/damage
  3. Contaminated taper: Cement, metal debris, bone fragments prevent full seating

    • Solution: Meticulous cleaning of taper before head placement
  4. Metal mallet directly on ceramic: Instant fracture

    • Solution: ONLY use plastic head impactor provided by manufacturer

Trial Reduction and Component Check

Before impacting ceramic head on real stem:

  • Use trial components: Trial femoral head (metal) on real stem, trial liner in real cup
  • Assess stability: Range of motion, impingement-free arc, leg length, offset
  • Check cup position: Confirm inclination less than 50°, anteversion appropriate
  • If unstable or poor position: Modify components or cup position BEFORE using ceramic

Only proceed with ceramic after confirming satisfactory trial:

  • Stable hip, adequate range of motion, no impingement, cup position optimal

Reduce ceramic bearing:

  • Gentle reduction: Support femoral head, guide into acetabular liner (NO forceful clunking)
  • Confirm reduction: Hip should move smoothly through full range of motion
  • Assess stability: Provocative maneuvers (flexion-adduction-internal rotation, extension-adduction-external rotation)

Protect bearing during closure:

  • Avoid dislocation: Maintain hip in neutral position during closure
  • No excessive motion: Avoid extreme positions that could cause dislocation during closure
  • Suction drain placement: Place drain away from hip joint (avoid proximity to ceramic bearing)

Advanced Technique Considerations

Ceramic vs Polyethylene Liner - Technical Differences

AspectCeramic LinerXLPE LinerClinical Implication
Impaction force requiredGentle controlled blows (brittle material, fracture risk)Can withstand more forceful impactionCeramic requires more meticulous technique, cannot correct with force
Taper cleanlinessCRITICAL: Must be completely dry and cleanLess sensitive (still should be clean)Wet/contaminated taper causes ceramic head fracture, XLPE more forgiving
Impactor typeManufacturer-specific plastic or soft metal impactor ONLYStandard metal impactors acceptableWrong impactor will fracture ceramic intraoperatively
Positioning toleranceLow tolerance: Cup greater than 50° inclination significantly increases edge loadingHigher tolerance: XLPE tolerates suboptimal position betterCeramic requires more precise cup positioning to avoid complications
Intraoperative inspectionMandatory visual inspection for cracks, chips (reject if ANY defect)Less critical (scratches acceptable if minor)Ceramic zero defect tolerance, even microscopic flaw can propagate

Optimal Cup Positioning Strategy for Ceramic Bearings

Achieving 40° inclination, 15° anteversion (minimize edge loading):

Mechanical alignment guides:

  • Cup impactor with alignment guides: Rod or laser guide showing cup orientation relative to patient anatomy
  • Align to anatomic landmarks: Transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) approximates anatomic acetabular version (NOT true version)
  • Radiographic method: Intraoperative fluoroscopy (AP pelvis) measures inclination directly

Target position:

  • Inclination: 40° relative to horizontal (defined by ischial tuberosities or floor)
  • Anteversion: 15° relative to coronal plane
  • Acceptable range: Lewinnek safe zone (30-50° inclination, 5-25° anteversion)
  • AVOID: Greater than 50° inclination (edge loading), greater than 25° anteversion (posterior impingement)

Advantages for ceramic bearings:

  • Precise cup positioning: Achieve target 40° inclination, 15° anteversion with ±2-3° accuracy (vs ±5-10° freehand)
  • Real-time feedback: Adjust cup position before final impaction
  • Reduced outliers: Fewer cups outside Lewinnek safe zone (outlier rate 5-10% with navigation vs 20-30% freehand)

Disadvantages:

  • Cost: Navigation systems expensive, may increase operative time
  • Learning curve: Requires surgeon training and experience
  • Registration errors: Pelvic registration errors can propagate to cup position errors

Recommendation: Consider navigation/robotics for complex cases (dysplasia, revision) or surgeons early in learning curve.

Pelvic tilt affects functional cup orientation:

  • Supine radiographs: Show anatomic position (patient lying flat)
  • Standing radiographs: Show functional position (pelvic tilt affects cup orientation)
  • Pelvic retroversion (posterior tilt in stance): Functional cup more vertical (higher inclination) than anatomic

Adjust for pelvic tilt (advanced):

  • Measure pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL)
  • If PI-LL greater than 10° (flat back, posterior pelvic tilt): Aim for anatomic inclination 35-38° (will be 40-45° functional)
  • If PI-LL less than -10° (hyperlordotic, anterior pelvic tilt): Aim for anatomic inclination 42-45° (will be 38-42° functional)

Managing Intraoperative Ceramic Fracture

If ceramic fracture occurs during insertion:

Intraoperative Ceramic Fracture Protocol

STOP, DO NOT PROCEED. Follow fracture management protocol:

  1. STOP procedure immediately: Do not proceed with fractured component
  2. Copious irrigation: 9-12 liters normal saline pulsed lavage
  3. Remove ALL fragments: Inspect joint, capsule, muscles for ceramic particles
  4. Change gloves, gowns, drapes: Prevent reintroducing particles
  5. Replace ALL ceramic components: New liner AND new head (even if only one fractured)
  6. Consider aborting ceramic: If extensive contamination, switch to metal-on-XLPE
  7. Document: Operative note must detail fracture, irrigation, component changes, lot numbers

Examiner Favorite: Dry Taper Principle

Examiners ask: Why must the femoral taper be dry before impacting ceramic head?

Answer:

  • Wet taper reduces friction between ceramic head bore and metal taper
  • Head slides excessively down taper during impaction (instead of gradual seating)
  • Creates radial tensile stress in ceramic head bore (ceramic weak in tension)
  • Radial cracks propagate with cyclic loading, causing delayed fracture (weeks to months postop)

Prevention: Dry taper with dry sponge, NO saline irrigation of taper immediately before head insertion

Manufacturer instructions: All ceramic head manufacturers (CeramTec, Smith+Nephew, Stryker) specify dry taper in instructions for use

Complications

Overview of Ceramic Bearing Complications

Ceramic-Specific Complications

Unique to ceramic bearings:

  • Ceramic fracture (head or liner)
  • Squeaking (audible, patient-distressing)
  • Stripe wear (edge loading phenomenon)
  • Trunnionosis (specific to large heads)

Note: Many complications relate to material brittleness and edge loading sensitivity.

General THA Complications (Modified Risk)

Risk profile differs from other bearings:

  • Dislocation: Similar or lower (larger heads possible)
  • Osteolysis: Lower (minimal wear debris)
  • Infection: Similar to other bearings
  • Aseptic loosening: Lower long-term (no particulate osteolysis)

Note: Low wear advantage reduces particle-related complications.

Ceramic Fracture

Ceramic Fracture - Catastrophic Failure

Incidence:

  • Pure alumina: 0.1-0.2% (historical)
  • BIOLOX Delta: 0.01-0.1% (current)

Presentation:

  • Sudden onset severe groin/hip pain
  • Audible grinding, clicking, or "bag of glass" sensation
  • Loss of function, inability to weight-bear
  • May present immediately or with delayed failure (weeks to months)

Emergency management: Urgent revision surgery, extensive debridement, ceramic-on-ceramic revision (NEVER polyethylene).

Ceramic Fracture: Head vs Liner

Squeaking

Squeaking: Causes and Management

Stripe Wear

Definition: Visible wear stripe on ceramic head from edge loading against the acetabular liner rim.

Causes:

  • Acetabular cup malposition (excessive inclination greater than 50°)
  • Microseparation during swing phase
  • Impingement causing subluxation

Consequences:

  • Surface roughening accelerates wear
  • May cause or exacerbate squeaking
  • Rarely causes fracture but indicates edge loading

Prevention: Optimal cup positioning, larger heads (36mm vs 28mm), avoiding impingement

Dislocation Considerations

Advantages for Dislocation Prevention

Ceramic allows larger heads:

  • 36mm and 40mm heads commonly available
  • Larger head-to-neck ratio improves range of motion
  • Jump distance increased, resisting dislocation
  • Head size 36mm: 1-2% dislocation vs 28mm: 3-4%

Recommendation: Use 36mm head when acetabular component size permits (52mm+ cup).

Disadvantages and Considerations

Limitations:

  • Larger heads increase trunnion corrosion risk (more torque)
  • Edge loading more problematic with larger heads if malpositioned
  • 40mm heads limited to 56mm+ cups (wall thickness constraints)

Balance: 36mm optimal compromise (dislocation protection vs trunnionosis risk).

Trunnionosis (Specific to Larger Ceramic Heads)

Mechanism: Larger ceramic heads generate more torque at the femoral head-taper junction, accelerating mechanically-assisted crevice corrosion.

Risk factors:

  • Large head size (40mm+)
  • Long neck lengths (increased moment arm)
  • Ti-6Al-4V taper (vs CoCr - more susceptible)
  • High activity level

Presentation:

  • Pain, often groin or thigh
  • Elevated serum cobalt and chromium (from taper)
  • Pseudotumor formation (rare)
  • Taper wear visible on revision

Prevention:

  • Optimal head size (36mm rather than 40mm when possible)
  • Short/neutral neck lengths when biomechanically appropriate
  • Ti-sleeve adapters available for some designs

Ceramic Complication Rates

Know these numbers for exams:

  • Fracture: 0.01-0.1% (BIOLOX Delta)
  • Squeaking: 1-8% (usually benign)
  • Revision for squeaking: under 0.1%
  • Stripe wear: Related to cup malposition
  • Osteolysis: Essentially zero with well-functioning ceramic

Key message: Ceramic complications are rare but ceramic-specific (fracture, squeaking). Traditional complications (osteolysis, wear) are dramatically reduced.

Ceramic Fracture: Detailed Pathophysiology

Head Fracture Mechanism:

Sequence of events:

  1. Taper contaminated with saline/blood during impaction
  2. Ceramic head slides excessively down taper (reduced friction)
  3. Radial tensile stress generated in ceramic head bore
  4. Microscopic radial cracks initiate at bore surface
  5. Cyclic loading propagates cracks over days to months
  6. Catastrophic fracture when critical crack length reached

Time to fracture: Days to years (typically within first 2 years)

Sequence of events:

  1. Cup positioned with excessive inclination (greater than 50°)
  2. Femoral head loads onto liner rim rather than center during stance
  3. Concentrated rim stress exceeds ceramic fracture threshold
  4. Crack initiates at rim, propagates into liner body
  5. Catastrophic failure with fragmentation into joint

Risk amplifiers: Component mismatch, impingement, trauma

Management of Squeaking - Detailed Algorithm

Squeaking Investigation Protocol

Step 1: Clinical Assessment

  • Frequency and reproducibility of squeaking
  • Associated pain (suggests component problem vs benign squeaking)
  • Functional limitation
  • Onset (early vs late postoperatively)

Step 2: Imaging

  • AP pelvis, lateral hip radiographs
  • Measure cup inclination and anteversion (CT if needed)
  • Assess component seating (liner, head)
  • Rule out fracture (radiographic or CT)

Step 3: Serology (if pain present)

  • Serum cobalt and chromium (rule out trunnionosis)
  • ESR, CRP (rule out infection)

Step 4: Management Decision

  • Asymptomatic squeaking only: Reassurance, observation
  • Pain without imaging abnormality: Trial of activity modification
  • Malpositioned cup with symptoms: Consider revision
  • Evidence of fracture/trunnionosis: Revision required

Revision After Ceramic Fracture: Technical Considerations

Critical Principle: NEVER Use Polyethylene After Ceramic Fracture

Rationale:

  • Ceramic fragments embed in metal shell, trunnion, capsule, muscle
  • Impossible to remove ALL fragments even with extensive debridement
  • Residual ceramic debris acts as third-body abrasive
  • Polyethylene wear accelerated 10-100 fold by ceramic particles
  • Results in catastrophic polyethylene failure within months to years

Only acceptable options:

  • Ceramic-on-ceramic (new liner AND head)
  • Metal-on-metal (historically, now rarely used)

Revision After Ceramic Fracture: Surgical Protocol

Comparison: Ceramic vs XLPE Complication Profiles

Complication Risk: Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs Metal-on-XLPE

Long-Term Surveillance for Ceramic Complications

Recommended follow-up schedule:

TimepointClinicalRadiographicNotes
6 weeksWound, ROM, functionAP pelvis, lateralConfirm component position
3 monthsPain, squeaking, functionNot routineEarly squeaking assessment
1 yearComprehensive clinicalAP pelvisComponent stability, position
2 yearsClinicalAP pelvisCritical period for late fracture
5 yearsClinicalAP pelvisLong-term assessment
10+ yearsClinicalAP pelvisRare complications, osteolysis screen

Examiner Favorite: Why No Polyethylene After Ceramic Fracture?

This is a classic viva question. The answer must include:

  1. Ceramic fragments impossible to fully remove - embed in capsule, muscle, metal components
  2. Third-body wear mechanism - ceramic debris scratches metal head, accelerates poly wear
  3. Catastrophic polyethylene failure - accelerated wear by 10-100 fold
  4. Only safe option: ceramic-on-ceramic - ceramic articulates safely with residual ceramic debris
  5. Metal-on-metal - historical option, now avoided due to metal ion concerns

Key phrase: "Ceramic debris acts as third-body abrasive, causing catastrophic accelerated polyethylene wear."

Postoperative Care

Postoperative Protocol for Ceramic-on-Ceramic THA

Day 0-1: Immediate Postoperative

Standard THA protocol:

  • Mobilization day 0 or day 1 (ERAS protocol)
  • Weight-bearing as tolerated (cemented/uncemented)
  • DVT prophylaxis per institutional protocol
  • Wound inspection at 24 hours
  • Pain management (multimodal analgesia)

Ceramic-specific: No difference from other bearings in immediate postop care.

Week 1-6: Early Recovery

Rehabilitation goals:

  • Progressive mobilization with walking aids
  • Hip precautions per surgical approach
  • Wound healing (sutures/staples out 10-14 days)
  • Physiotherapy for ROM and strengthening

Ceramic-specific: Counsel patient about potential squeaking (benign, usually self-limiting).

Hip Precautions

Hip Precautions by Surgical Approach

Note: Ceramic bearings allow larger head sizes (36mm, 40mm), which may reduce dislocation risk and potentially allow relaxed precautions, but this depends on surgeon preference and approach.

Weight-Bearing Protocol

FixationImmediate Postop6 Weeks3 Months
CementedFull weight-bearingFullUnrestricted
Uncemented (press-fit)Weight-bearing as toleratedFullUnrestricted
Uncemented (hybrid)Partial weight-bearingFullUnrestricted

Ceramic-specific: No modification to weight-bearing based on bearing surface.

Activity Recommendations

Activity Recommendations After Ceramic-on-Ceramic THA

Patient Counseling: Squeaking

Counsel Patients About Squeaking Preoperatively

Key points to discuss:

  1. Incidence: 1-8% of ceramic hips may squeak at some point
  2. Usually benign: Under 0.1% require revision for squeaking
  3. Timing: May occur weeks to years postoperatively
  4. Triggers: Standing from seated, stair climbing, specific movements
  5. What to do: Report to surgeon but reassurance that usually not concerning
  6. Red flags: Pain, grinding, functional loss (these need investigation)

Documenting this discussion preoperatively manages patient expectations.

Follow-Up Schedule

TimepointClinical AssessmentRadiographsPurpose
2 weeksWound checkNot routineEarly complication screening
6 weeksROM, function, squeakingAP pelvis, lateral hipComponent position, early integration
3 monthsPain, functionOptionalIntermediate recovery
1 yearComprehensive (HHS/OHS)AP pelvisBaseline established
AnnuallyClinicalAP pelvis (every 2-5 years)Long-term surveillance

Postoperative Care Key Points

For exams, remember:

  • Postoperative protocol same as any THA (mobilization, DVT prophylaxis, rehab)
  • Ceramic-specific: counsel patient about squeaking (1-8%, usually benign)
  • Larger head sizes (36mm+) may reduce dislocation risk
  • Activity recommendations similar to other bearings (low-impact encouraged)
  • Follow-up: annual clinical, radiographs every 1-5 years depending on symptoms

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Ceramic THA

Standard ERAS elements:

  • Preoperative education and expectation setting (include squeaking discussion)
  • Optimization of comorbidities (diabetes, anemia, nutrition)
  • Smoking cessation (6+ weeks preoperatively)
  • Carbohydrate loading (clear liquids with carbohydrate up to 2 hours preop)
  • Minimal fasting (6 hours solids, 2 hours clear fluids)

Anesthetic and surgical factors:

  • Spinal anesthesia preferred (reduced blood loss, PONV, respiratory complications)
  • Multimodal analgesia (local infiltration analgesia, periarticular injection)
  • Tranexamic acid (reduce blood loss)
  • Normothermia maintenance
  • Fluid optimization (goal-directed fluid therapy)
  • Ceramic-specific: Meticulous component insertion technique (dry taper, gentle impaction)

Day 0:

  • Oral intake 2-4 hours postop
  • Mobilization day 0 if tolerated
  • Urinary catheter removal early (if used)
  • Multimodal oral analgesia (minimize opioids)

Day 1-2:

  • Progressive mobilization (stairs by day 1-2)
  • Discharge when functional criteria met
  • Same-day discharge for selected patients

Target LOS: 1-3 days (vs historical 5-7 days)

Rehabilitation Protocol

Rehabilitation Phases After Ceramic-on-Ceramic THA

DVT Prophylaxis

Standard protocol (no ceramic-specific modification):

Risk LevelRegimenDuration
StandardLMWH (enoxaparin 40mg daily) or rivaroxaban 10mg daily35 days
High risk (prior VTE, thrombophilia)LMWH (enoxaparin 40mg daily)35 days + consider extended
Bleeding riskMechanical (IPC devices, TED stockings) + aspirin 100mg daily35 days

Note: Aspirin 100mg BD increasingly accepted for standard-risk patients (equivalent VTE prevention, lower bleeding risk).

Managing Early Complications

Early Postoperative Red Flags

Require urgent assessment:

  • Wound drainage beyond day 3-5
  • Fever greater than 38.5°C
  • New pain after initial improvement
  • Audible grinding (not squeaking) - may indicate fracture
  • Leg length discrepancy greater than 2cm (patient-perceived)
  • Neurological deficit

Ceramic-specific:

  • Early squeaking (1-4 weeks): Usually benign, reassurance
  • Grinding sound: Investigate for fracture (radiographs urgently)
  • Severe sudden pain: Rule out dislocation AND ceramic fracture

Return to Driving

Evidence-based recommendations:

Operated SideAutomatic VehicleManual Vehicle
Left hip (Australia)2-4 weeks (when off narcotics)4-6 weeks (clutch use)
Right hip (Australia)4-6 weeks (brake reaction time)6-8 weeks

Criteria: Off opioid analgesia, brake reaction time under 700ms, no hip precaution violation while driving.

Return to Work

Job TypeReturn TimingModifications
Sedentary (office)2-4 weeksFrequent position changes
Light manual4-6 weeksAvoid heavy lifting initially
Moderate manual6-12 weeksProgressive return, modified duties
Heavy manual3-6 monthsFull recovery, may need permanent restrictions

Long-Term Activity and Ceramic Longevity

Activity Impact on Ceramic Bearing Longevity

Ceramic advantage: Ultra-low wear means activity level has less impact on bearing longevity compared to polyethylene. Main concerns are dislocation and fracture (mechanical), not wear.

Outcomes

Overall Survivorship

10-Year Survivorship

Registry and literature data:

  • Ceramic-on-ceramic: 95-97% at 10 years
  • Metal-on-XLPE: 95-96% at 10 years
  • No significant difference between bearings

Key point: Choice of bearing does not significantly affect 10-year survivorship in registry data.

15-20 Year Survivorship

Long-term data (limited):

  • Ceramic-on-ceramic: 90-94% at 15-20 years
  • Theoretical advantage: Lower wear should reduce late osteolysis
  • Registry data: Still accumulating for modern ceramics

Note: BIOLOX Delta only available since 2003-2005; long-term data still emerging.

Revision Rates by Bearing

Revision Rates: AOANJRR and International Registry Data

Functional Outcomes

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs):

Outcome MeasureCeramic-on-CeramicMetal-on-XLPESignificance
Oxford Hip Score (12mo)42-44/4842-44/48No difference
Harris Hip Score (12mo)90-95/10090-95/100No difference
SF-36 Physical (12mo)ImprovedImprovedNo difference
Return to activity (6mo)85-90%85-90%No difference
Patient satisfaction92-95%92-95%No difference

Key finding: Functional outcomes are equivalent between bearing surfaces at short-to-medium term follow-up.

Wear Performance

Wear Rates: Ceramic vs Polyethylene

Ceramic advantage: 10-fold lower wear translates to negligible osteolysis risk, important for younger patients with longer life expectancy.

Ceramic-Specific Outcomes

Ceramic-Specific Complication Rates

Outcomes Summary for Exams

Key numbers:

  • 10-year survivorship: 95-97% (equivalent to metal-on-XLPE)
  • 15-year survivorship: 90-94% (theoretical wear advantage)
  • Wear rate: Under 0.005mm/year (10x lower than XLPE)
  • Fracture: 0.01-0.1% (BIOLOX Delta)
  • Squeaking: 1-8%, revision under 0.1%
  • Osteolysis: Essentially zero

Take-home message: Functional outcomes equivalent to other bearings. Main advantages are ultra-low wear and no osteolysis, important for young active patients.

Registry Data: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR)

Ceramic-on-Ceramic Outcomes (AOANJRR 2022 Report):

ParameterData
Total ceramic-on-ceramic THAOver 60,000 in registry
10-year cumulative revision5.2% (all ages)
10-year revision (under 55 years)4.8%
Primary revision indicationLoosening (2.1%), fracture (0.6%), dislocation (0.5%)
Comparison: metal-on-XLPE 10-year5.1% (not significantly different)

Age-specific outcomes:

  • Under 55 years: Ceramic-on-ceramic shows slight advantage (4.8% vs 5.4% for metal-on-XLPE)
  • 55-64 years: Equivalent outcomes
  • Over 65 years: Metal-on-XLPE slightly favored (patient selection bias)

International Registry Comparisons

Ceramic-on-Ceramic Survivorship: International Registries

Long-Term Survivorship: 15-20 Years

Published studies (single-center, prospective):

StudyFollow-upSurvivorshipKey Findings
D'Antonio et al (2012)20 years91%Pure alumina, higher fracture rate (0.5%)
Hamilton et al (2018)15 years93%BIOLOX Forte, squeaking 2%
Lee et al (2020)18 years94%BIOLOX Delta subset, no fractures
Murphy et al (2022)15 years95%BIOLOX Delta, squeaking 4%

Trend: BIOLOX Delta shows improved outcomes compared to earlier alumina (lower fracture, similar squeaking).

Factors Affecting Ceramic Outcomes

Prognostic Factors for Ceramic-on-Ceramic THA

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost Analysis: Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs Metal-on-XLPE

Cost-effectiveness: Ceramic-on-ceramic cost-effective in patients with greater than 20-year life expectancy where lower revision rate offsets higher implant cost.

Comparison: Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs Ceramic-on-XLPE

Bearing Comparison: Ceramic-on-Ceramic vs Ceramic-on-XLPE

Ceramic-on-XLPE: Combines low wear of ceramic articulation with toughness of polyethylene. Eliminates liner fracture and squeaking risk. Increasingly popular alternative.

Outcomes by Head Size

Head SizeDislocationSqueakingTrunnionosisRecommendation
28mm3-4%RareLowHistorical, rarely used now
32mm2-3%1-3%LowAcceptable for smaller cups
36mm1-2%3-5%ModerateOptimal balance
40mmUnder 1%5-8%HigherSelected cases, 56mm+ cups

36mm head: Optimal compromise between dislocation prevention and trunnionosis/squeaking risk.

Examiner Favorite: Justify Ceramic Bearing Selection

Question: When would you choose ceramic-on-ceramic over metal-on-XLPE?

Answer framework:

  1. Patient factors: Young (under 60), active, long life expectancy (greater than 20 years)
  2. Wear considerations: Ultra-low wear rate (0.005 vs 0.05mm/year), no osteolysis
  3. Activity tolerance: Can return to moderate-high activity without accelerated wear
  4. Trade-offs accepted: Higher cost, ceramic-specific complications (squeaking, fracture)

Contraindications to ceramic:

  • Elderly (over 75) with limited life expectancy (wear advantage irrelevant)
  • Cognitive impairment (cannot report squeaking/pain appropriately)
  • High fall risk (fracture from trauma)
  • Patient concerned about squeaking (even if rare, affects satisfaction)

Evidence Base

Ceramic-on-Ceramic Long-Term Outcomes

2
Hamilton et al • Bone Joint J (2018)
Key Findings:
  • Registry analysis: 20,000+ ceramic-on-ceramic THA at 10 years
  • Revision rate: 4.8% vs 5.1% for metal-on-XLPE (not significant)
  • Fracture rate: 0.021% for BIOLOX Delta (modern ceramic)
  • Squeaking: 1-3% incidence, rarely requires revision (under 0.1%)
  • No osteolysis reported in well-functioning bearings
Clinical Implication: Ceramic-on-ceramic provides excellent long-term survivorship comparable to metal-on-XLPE. BIOLOX Delta significantly reduced fracture rates compared to historical ceramics.
Limitation: Registry data, selection bias (younger more active patients receive ceramics), cannot isolate bearing effect from other variables.

BIOLOX Delta vs Pure Alumina Fracture Risk

3
Traina et al • J Arthroplasty (2013)
Key Findings:
  • Retrospective cohort: 1200 BIOLOX Delta vs 1000 pure alumina
  • BIOLOX Delta fracture rate: 0.01% vs alumina 0.13% (13-fold reduction)
  • Fracture toughness testing: BIOLOX Delta 50% higher than pure alumina
  • Edge loading tolerance: BIOLOX Delta withstands higher rim stress
  • No difference in wear rates between materials (both under 0.005mm/year)
Clinical Implication: BIOLOX Delta alumina matrix composite significantly reduces fracture risk while maintaining ultra-low wear. Recommended over pure alumina.
Limitation: Single-center study, short-to-medium follow-up, fracture events rare (low statistical power).

Ceramic vs XLPE Wear Rates in THA

3
Affatato et al • J Biomech (2015)
Key Findings:
  • Simulator study: 5 million cycles ceramic-on-ceramic vs metal-on-XLPE
  • Ceramic-on-ceramic wear: 0.003 mm/year equivalent
  • Metal-on-XLPE wear: 0.035 mm/year equivalent
  • Ceramic particle size: under 0.05 microns (below osteolysis threshold)
  • XLPE particles: 0.1-1 microns (osteolysis range)
Clinical Implication: Ceramic-on-ceramic wear rate 10-fold lower than XLPE. Particle size below biological response threshold suggests negligible osteolysis risk.
Limitation: Simulator study, may not reflect clinical loading/lubrication conditions. Need long-term clinical correlation.

MCQ Practice Points

Ceramic Composition

Q: What is the composition of modern ceramic bearings and what determines their quality?

A: Alumina (Al₂O₃) is the main component. Quality determined by: grain size (smaller than 2 microns optimal), purity (greater than 99.7%), and manufacturing (hot isostatic pressing). Delta ceramics add zirconia for enhanced toughness while maintaining hardness.

Ceramic vs Metal Wear

Q: What is the annual wear rate of ceramic-on-ceramic bearings compared to metal-on-polyethylene?

A: Ceramic-on-ceramic: 0.004-0.04 mm/year. Metal-on-polyethylene: 0.1-0.2 mm/year. This is approximately 10-50 times less wear. This low wear makes ceramics ideal for young, active patients with greater than 20-year life expectancy.

Squeaking Phenomenon

Q: What causes squeaking in ceramic hip bearings and what are the risk factors?

A: Squeaking results from edge loading (stripe wear), microseparation, or dry running (lubrication failure). Risk factors: cup malposition (excessive inclination or anteversion), shorter patient height, larger head sizes, and specific implant designs. Incidence 1-10%, rarely functionally significant.

Ceramic Fracture Management

Q: What is the recommended approach when revising a fractured ceramic head?

A: Never use polyethylene - ceramic debris acts as third-body abrasive causing accelerated wear. Options: ceramic-on-ceramic (same or larger size), metal-on-metal (less common now), or complete liner exchange with meticulous synovectomy to remove all ceramic fragments. Fracture rate of modern ceramics is less than 0.01%.

Australian Context

AOANJRR Data on Ceramic Bearings

Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC):

  • AOANJRR data shows excellent survivorship with ceramic bearings
  • Lower revision rates for ceramic-on-ceramic vs metal-on-polyethylene in younger patients
  • Squeaking rates reported at 1-3% nationally
  • Ceramic head fracture rate less than 0.02% with modern materials

Ceramic-on-Polyethylene (CoP):

  • Cross-linked polyethylene with ceramic heads increasingly popular
  • Combines low wear of ceramic articulation with toughness of polyethylene
  • Recommended for older patients where squeaking/fracture concerns outweigh wear benefits

Australian Implant Selection

High-use ceramics: BIOLOX delta (CeramTec) most commonly used in Australia.

Indications by age:

  • Greater than 65 years: Metal/ceramic on cross-linked polyethylene preferred
  • 50-65 years: Consider ceramic-on-ceramic
  • Less than 50 years: Strong consideration for ceramic-on-ceramic

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Viva Scenario: BIOLOX Delta Microstructure

EXAMINER

"Examiner shows an SEM micrograph of BIOLOX Delta and asks: Describe the microstructure of this ceramic composite. How does the microstructure provide both low wear and improved fracture toughness compared to pure alumina?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This scanning electron microscopy image shows the microstructure of BIOLOX Delta, an alumina matrix composite. The predominant phase is alumina, appearing as small equiaxed grains with mean grain size less than 0.5 microns, which is approximately 4 times smaller than pure alumina ceramics that have grain size less than 2 microns. The darker elongated features are zirconia platelets, comprising 17 percent by volume, which are randomly distributed throughout the alumina matrix. The small grain size of the alumina phase provides high hardness via the Hall-Petch relationship, where strength is inversely proportional to the square root of grain size. This results in Vickers hardness exceeding 2000, approximately 10 times harder than cobalt-chromium metal, which provides excellent wear resistance with wear rates less than 0.005 millimeters per year. The zirconia platelets provide improved fracture toughness through two mechanisms. First, crack deflection: when a crack propagates through the material, it encounters randomly oriented zirconia platelets and is forced to follow a longer, tortuous path around them, dissipating energy. Second, transformation toughening: the stress concentration at the crack tip triggers transformation of metastable tetragonal zirconia to monoclinic zirconia, which undergoes 3 to 5 percent volume expansion. This expansion creates compressive stress that opposes crack opening and blunts the crack tip. Together, these mechanisms increase fracture toughness by approximately 50 percent compared to pure alumina, from 3 to 4 megapascals root meter for pure alumina to 5 to 6 megapascals root meter for BIOLOX Delta. This improved toughness has reduced clinical fracture rates from 0.1 to 0.2 percent with pure alumina to 0.01 to 0.1 percent with BIOLOX Delta, a ten-fold reduction, while maintaining the ultra-low wear rate. The composite architecture thus provides the optimal balance between wear resistance, which requires extreme hardness from small alumina grains, and fracture resistance, which requires toughening from zirconia platelets.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
BIOLOX Delta: 82% alumina (grain size less than 0.5 microns), 17% zirconia platelets
Small grain size provides hardness (Hall-Petch: strength ∝ 1/√grain size)
Zirconia mechanisms: crack deflection (tortuous path) and transformation toughening (volume expansion)
Result: 50% higher fracture toughness, 10-fold lower fracture rate (0.01-0.1% vs 0.1-0.2%)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not explaining Hall-Petch relationship (grain size affects strength)
✗Forgetting transformation toughening mechanism (tetragonal to monoclinic)
✗Not quantifying improvements (50% toughness increase, 10-fold fracture reduction)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is hot isostatic pressing and why is it critical?"
"Why was pure zirconia discontinued as a bearing material?"
"What causes stripe wear in ceramic bearings?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Viva Scenario: Classification and Selection

EXAMINER

"Examiner asks: How do you classify ceramic bearings used in total hip arthroplasty? What is the current gold standard and why?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty can be classified by composition, generation, and bearing combination. By composition, the main types are alumina, zirconia, and alumina matrix composites. Alumina has extreme hardness with Vickers hardness exceeding 2000, but is brittle with fracture toughness of 3 to 4 megapascals root meter. Zirconia has higher fracture toughness of 5 to 7 megapascals root meter, but suffers from in vivo phase transformation where metastable tetragonal zirconia transforms to monoclinic phase, causing 3 to 5 percent volume expansion that roughens the surface. This led to product recall in 2001, and pure zirconia bearings are now discontinued. BIOLOX Delta is an alumina matrix composite consisting of 82 percent alumina, 17 percent zirconia platelets, and small amounts of chromium oxide and strontium oxide. By generation, first generation ceramics from the 1970s had large grain size and high porosity, with fracture rates of 0.5 to 1 percent. Second generation ceramics from the 1990s used hot isostatic pressing to reduce grain size to less than 2 microns and eliminate porosity, reducing fracture rates to 0.1 to 0.2 percent. Third generation attempted to use pure zirconia for higher toughness but failed due to in vivo aging. Fourth generation, represented by BIOLOX Delta from 2000s onward, combines alumina hardness with zirconia platelet toughening, achieving fracture toughness of 5 to 6 megapascals root meter and fracture rates of 0.01 to 0.1 percent, a ten-fold reduction. By bearing combination, options include ceramic-on-ceramic with wear rates less than 0.005 millimeters per year but 1 to 8 percent squeaking incidence, ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene with wear rates of 0.02 to 0.04 millimeters per year and no squeaking, and historical ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene which is now avoided. The current gold standard is BIOLOX Delta ceramic-on-ceramic for young, active patients under 50 to 60 years old who need the lowest possible wear rate for longest implant lifespan. The alumina matrix provides hardness and wear resistance, while the dispersed zirconia platelets provide crack deflection and transformation toughening without the in vivo aging problem of pure zirconia. For older patients or those concerned about squeaking, ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene is an acceptable alternative.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Classification: by composition (alumina, zirconia, composite), generation (1st-4th), bearing (CoC, CoXLPE)
Zirconia DISCONTINUED due to in vivo phase transformation (t→m, roughening, product recall 2001)
BIOLOX Delta current standard: 82% Al2O3, 17% ZrO2 platelets, fracture rate 0.01-0.1%
CoC for young patients (ultra-low wear), CoXLPE alternative (no squeak, lower fracture concern)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Saying zirconia is still used as pure bearing (it was WITHDRAWN)
✗Not knowing phase transformation mechanism (tetragonal to monoclinic, 3-5% expansion)
✗Not specifying BIOLOX Delta composition (82% alumina, 17% zirconia)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What causes squeaking in ceramic bearings?"
"How do you position the cup to minimize ceramic fracture risk?"
"What is the management of an intraoperative ceramic fracture?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Viva Scenario: Investigating Ceramic Squeaking

EXAMINER

"Examiner presents case: 52-year-old active patient, ceramic-on-ceramic THA 2 years ago, now complains of squeaking with stairs and getting out of car. No pain. Examination shows full range of motion. How do you investigate and manage?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty occurs in 1 to 8 percent of cases and is usually benign. I would first characterize the squeaking by asking about timing, loudness, pain association, and functional impact. In this case, the squeaking is activity-related, occurring with stairs and getting out of car, which are high-flexion activities that can cause edge loading or impingement. The absence of pain is reassuring as it suggests no progressive damage. On examination, I would perform provocative maneuvers, particularly hip flexion-adduction-internal rotation, to reproduce the squeak and assess for impingement. The full range of motion is reassuring. I would obtain radiographs including anteroposterior pelvis and lateral hip to assess component position and look for complications. Specifically, I would measure acetabular cup inclination, with optimal being 40 degrees and concerning if greater than 50 degrees, which predisposes to edge loading. I would also assess anteversion, with target 15 degrees and range 5 to 25 degrees. On lateral radiograph, I would look for stripe wear, which appears as a linear radiolucency at the equator of the ceramic liner corresponding to concentrated contact from edge loading. I would also assess for signs of impingement between the femoral neck and acetabular liner, component loosening shown by radiolucent lines, or ceramic fracture shown by radio-dense fragments. If radiographs show cup malposition outside the Lewinnek safe zone, particularly inclination greater than 50 to 55 degrees, or evidence of stripe wear, this would explain the squeaking. If radiographs are inconclusive, I would consider CT scan for more accurate version measurement and 3D impingement analysis. Regarding management, most squeaking is benign and resolves spontaneously. Since this patient has no pain and full range of motion, I would reassure them and recommend observation. I would explain that squeaking alone, without pain or functional limitation, rarely requires revision. I would recommend activity modification to avoid provocative movements if possible, though this may be difficult with stairs. I would counsel about the natural history, that many cases improve over time as the bearing surfaces conform. Revision would only be considered if there was severe functional impairment, progressive pain, cup malposition with progressive stripe wear on serial radiographs, or severe psychological impact affecting quality of life. The revision rate for squeaking alone is less than 0.1 percent. I would arrange follow-up in 6 to 12 months with repeat radiographs to assess for any progression of wear, and counsel the patient that we will monitor the situation but intervention is unlikely to be needed.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Squeaking: 1-8% incidence, usually benign, rarely requires revision (less than 0.1%)
Investigation: AP pelvis and lateral hip, measure cup position (inclination target 40°, safe zone 30-50°), look for stripe wear
Stripe wear: linear radiolucency at liner equator, indicates edge loading from steep cup (greater than 50°)
Management: Observation and reassurance if asymptomatic, revision rarely needed (only if pain, severe impact, or progressive wear)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Recommending immediate revision for squeaking alone (too aggressive, rarely needed)
✗Not assessing cup position (key determinant of edge loading and squeaking)
✗Not explaining benign nature and low revision rate (patient reassurance critical)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What are the indications for revision of a squeaking ceramic bearing?"
"How do you measure acetabular cup anteversion on plain radiographs?"
"What is the management of ceramic fracture?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Viva Scenario: Bearing Selection in Young Patient

EXAMINER

"Examiner asks: 45-year-old active patient, primary osteoarthritis of hip, normal acetabular anatomy. What bearing surface would you recommend and why? The patient asks about risk of squeaking with ceramic. How do you counsel?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
For a 45-year-old active patient with primary osteoarthritis and normal acetabular anatomy, I would recommend a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing using BIOLOX Delta components. The rationale is that this patient has a projected lifespan of 35 to 40 years, making longevity of the bearing surface the primary concern. Ceramic-on-ceramic provides the lowest wear rate of any bearing surface, less than 0.005 millimeters per year, which is approximately 10 times lower than highly crosslinked polyethylene. This ultra-low wear rate essentially eliminates the risk of osteolysis and maximizes the chance that this single implant will last the patient's lifetime, potentially avoiding the need for revision surgery. The patient has normal acetabular anatomy, which means I can reliably achieve optimal cup positioning at 40 degrees inclination and 15 degrees anteversion, within the Lewinnek safe zone. This optimal positioning minimizes the risk of edge loading and impingement, which are the main causes of ceramic fracture and squeaking. The fracture risk with modern BIOLOX Delta ceramics is very low, 0.01 to 0.1 percent, which is comparable to general surgical complication risks. Regarding the patient's question about squeaking, I would explain that squeaking occurs in approximately 1 to 8 percent of ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. I would emphasize several reassuring points. First, the majority of squeaking is benign and does not indicate implant failure or progressive damage. Many patients experience squeaking that resolves spontaneously over time as the bearing surfaces conform to each other. Second, squeaking is usually intermittent and occurs with specific activities like stairs or getting out of a car, rather than being constant. Third, the rate of revision surgery specifically for squeaking is extremely low, less than 0.1 percent, meaning that even if squeaking occurs, it very rarely requires further surgery. I would also explain that optimal cup positioning, which I can achieve in their case given normal anatomy, significantly reduces squeaking risk by minimizing edge loading. I would present the alternative option of ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene, which has no squeaking risk but a slightly higher wear rate of 0.02 to 0.04 millimeters per year. While this is still low and would likely provide good longevity, it is approximately 5 to 10 times higher than ceramic-on-ceramic. For a 45-year-old patient, I would emphasize that minimizing wear is particularly important given their long projected lifespan. Finally, I would engage in shared decision-making. I would ask the patient whether they prioritize absolute lowest wear rate and longest potential implant lifespan, even if it means accepting a 1 to 8 percent risk of benign squeaking, or whether they would prefer to eliminate squeaking risk entirely while accepting a slightly higher wear rate. Given their young age and activity level, most patients in this scenario choose ceramic-on-ceramic once they understand that squeaking is usually benign and rarely requires revision. However, I would respect the patient's informed preference if they chose the alternative.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Age 45, normal anatomy: recommend ceramic-on-ceramic (lowest wear, longest lifespan)
Squeaking: 1-8% incidence, usually benign, rarely requires revision (less than 0.1%)
Reassurance: most squeaking resolves spontaneously, does not indicate failure
Alternative: ceramic-on-XLPE (no squeak, but higher wear 0.02-0.04 mm/year vs less than 0.005)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not explaining benign nature of squeaking (patient reassurance critical)
✗Not mentioning revision rate for squeaking is less than 0.1% (very rare)
✗Not offering alternative of ceramic-on-XLPE (must present options for shared decision)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What would you recommend if the patient had severe acetabular dysplasia requiring steep cup?"
"How would you manage a ceramic fracture intraoperatively?"
"What is the management of a patient presenting with ceramic fracture 5 years postop?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Viva Scenario: Ceramic Head Impaction Technique

EXAMINER

"Examiner asks: You are performing primary THA with ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. Describe your technique for impacting the ceramic head onto the femoral taper. What are the key safety principles?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
When impacting a ceramic femoral head onto the femoral taper, meticulous technique is essential to prevent fracture. The first critical step is to ensure the femoral taper is completely dry and clean. I would wipe the taper with a dry sponge, ensuring no saline, blood, or other fluid is present. This is critical because a wet taper reduces friction between the ceramic head bore and the metal taper, causing the head to slide excessively during impaction, which creates radial tensile stress that can cause cracks. I would also remove any metal debris, cement, or bone fragments from the taper. Next, I would inspect the ceramic head carefully for any cracks, chips, or surface irregularities. If any defect is visible, even microscopic, I would reject the component and use a new one, as even small flaws can propagate to catastrophic fracture. The ceramic head must also be kept completely dry. I would then align the ceramic head onto the taper, ensuring correct orientation if the head has any offset or directional features. For impaction, I would use the manufacturer-provided plastic head impactor, never a metal mallet directly on the ceramic, as this would cause instant fracture. I would use gentle controlled blows, starting with light force and increasing gradually. The head should seat with 2 to 4 controlled taps. I would listen for a change in pitch - a fully seated head produces a higher-pitched sound when struck compared to the dull thud of an unseated head. I would avoid excessive force; if the head does not seat after 4 to 5 taps, I would remove it and inspect for debris or damage rather than continuing to strike harder. After impaction, I would verify seating with a pull test, attempting to remove the head with gentle traction - it should not budge. I would also perform a rotation test to ensure the head does not rotate on the taper. Visually, the gap between the head base and the neck shoulder should be minimal, typically less than 1 millimeter. The key safety principles are: first, ensuring a completely dry and clean taper to prevent the head from sliding excessively; second, gentle controlled impaction using only the plastic impactor provided; third, zero defect tolerance with mandatory visual inspection before use; and fourth, avoiding excessive force and recognizing when the head is not seating properly, which indicates a problem that requires investigation rather than more forceful impaction.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Dry taper CRITICAL: prevents head sliding, reduces radial crack risk
Gentle controlled impaction: plastic impactor only, 2-4 gentle taps, listen for pitch change
Zero defect tolerance: inspect head for cracks/chips, reject if ANY defect visible
Verify seating: pull test (no movement), rotation test (no rotation), visual gap less than 1mm
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not mentioning dry taper principle (critical and frequently asked)
✗Saying forceful impaction is acceptable (WRONG, causes cracks)
✗Not specifying plastic impactor (metal mallet directly on ceramic = fracture)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What happens if the taper is wet when you impact the ceramic head?"
"What would you do if the ceramic head fractures during impaction?"
"How do you achieve optimal cup position to minimize ceramic fracture risk?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Viva Scenario: Managing Ceramic Hip Squeaking

EXAMINER

"A 52-year-old active male presents 2 years after ceramic-on-ceramic THA with audible squeaking from his hip. He reports the squeaking occurs when standing from a seated position and climbing stairs. There is no associated pain, and he has full function. How do you investigate and manage this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic THA is reported in 1 to 8 percent of cases and is usually benign. My investigation would start with a detailed clinical assessment. I would ask about the frequency, reproducibility, and specific activities that cause squeaking. Importantly, I would determine if there is any associated pain, as painless squeaking is usually benign while painful squeaking may indicate a more significant problem such as edge loading or early fracture. I would assess his functional status using the Harris Hip Score or Oxford Hip Score. On examination, I would check range of motion, looking for impingement positions that reproduce the squeak. I would then obtain AP pelvis and lateral hip radiographs to assess cup position, specifically measuring inclination and anteversion. Cups with inclination over 50 degrees or anteversion over 25 degrees are at higher risk for edge loading and stripe wear. I would also look for any signs of fracture, component loosening, or osteolysis. If the clinical picture is concerning or cup malposition is suspected, I would obtain a CT scan with metal artifact reduction for more accurate assessment of cup position. If there is any pain or concern for trunnionosis, I would check serum cobalt and chromium levels. For this patient with painless squeaking, normal function, and no concerning findings, my management would be reassurance and observation. I would explain that squeaking in ceramic hips is common, occurring in up to 8 percent of cases, and less than 0.1 percent require revision specifically for squeaking. The exact cause is multifactorial, including edge loading, microseparation, and lubrication disruption, but it rarely indicates a failing bearing. I would recommend activity modification if squeaking is bothersome, avoiding the specific movements that cause it. I would arrange annual clinical and radiographic follow-up to monitor for any progression. Indications for revision would include persistent pain affecting function, radiographic evidence of component malposition with associated symptoms, or any signs of fracture. Revision for squeaking alone without pain or functional limitation is rarely indicated.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Squeaking incidence 1-8%, under 0.1% need revision for squeaking alone
Key distinction: painless (usually benign) vs painful (investigate further)
Imaging: radiographs for cup position, CT if malposition suspected
Serology: cobalt/chromium only if pain present (rule out trunnionosis)
Management: reassurance for asymptomatic, revision only if pain/malposition
COMMON TRAPS
✗Recommending revision for asymptomatic squeaking (over-treatment)
✗Not measuring cup position (inclination and anteversion)
✗Forgetting to ask about pain (key differentiator)
✗Not mentioning that most squeaking resolves or remains asymptomatic
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What cup position is associated with squeaking?"
"What causes stripe wear in ceramic bearings?"
"If this patient had pain and elevated metal ions, what would you do?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Viva Scenario: Postoperative Squeaking Counseling

EXAMINER

"You are seeing a 48-year-old woman in clinic 6 weeks after ceramic-on-ceramic THA. She reports occasional squeaking from her hip when climbing stairs. She is anxious because she read online that squeaking means her hip is failing. How do you counsel this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
I would first reassure the patient that squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty is common and usually benign. Squeaking occurs in approximately 1 to 8 percent of ceramic hips and is related to transient disruption of the fluid film lubrication between the ceramic surfaces. The exact mechanism is multifactorial but includes edge loading, microseparation during gait, and lubrication conditions. The important point is that less than 0.1 percent of patients with squeaking require revision surgery specifically for this symptom. I would ask about associated symptoms. The key question is whether there is any pain associated with the squeaking. Painless squeaking is almost always benign and often resolves over time or remains stable without progression. Painful squeaking may indicate edge loading from component malposition and warrants further investigation. I would examine her hip, checking range of motion and looking for positions that reproduce the squeak. I would review her radiographs from the 6-week visit to confirm satisfactory cup position, specifically looking at inclination (ideal 40 degrees) and anteversion (ideal 15 degrees). If her radiographs show good component position and she has no pain, I would reassure her that the squeaking is not a sign of implant failure. I would explain that the ceramic bearing surfaces are extremely hard and wear-resistant, with wear rates approximately 10 times lower than polyethylene. The squeaking does not indicate accelerated wear. I would recommend she continue her rehabilitation and follow up as planned. If the squeaking becomes painful, more frequent, or is associated with any grinding sensation, she should contact the clinic for earlier review. Most squeaking either resolves spontaneously over the first year or remains stable and asymptomatic long-term.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Squeaking occurs in 1-8% of ceramic hips, under 0.1% need revision
Key distinction: painless (benign) vs painful (needs investigation)
Check radiographs for cup position (inclination, anteversion)
Reassurance is primary management for asymptomatic squeaking
Follow up as scheduled, earlier if pain or progression
COMMON TRAPS
✗Over-investigating asymptomatic squeaking
✗Not checking radiographs for cup position
✗Failing to differentiate squeaking from grinding (grinding suggests fracture)
✗Creating unnecessary anxiety rather than providing reassurance
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What radiographic parameters would concern you?"
"What would you do if she reported associated pain?"
"At what point would you consider revision for squeaking?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Viva Scenario: Bearing Selection Discussion

EXAMINER

"A 45-year-old active male marathon runner requires primary THA for osteoarthritis. He asks about ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. Discuss the evidence for ceramic bearings and how you would counsel this patient."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is an ideal candidate for ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces given his age, activity level, and long life expectancy. I would explain that ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have been used in total hip arthroplasty for over 40 years, with significant improvements in the fourth-generation materials like BIOLOX Delta. The main advantage is ultra-low wear, approximately 0.005 millimeters per year, which is about 10 times lower than cross-linked polyethylene. This translates to essentially zero risk of osteolysis, which is the bone loss caused by wear debris that can lead to implant loosening. For a 45-year-old with potentially 40 or more years of life expectancy, this is an important consideration. Registry data from Australia and internationally show that ceramic-on-ceramic survivorship is equivalent to metal-on-polyethylene at 10 years, around 95 to 97 percent. There is theoretical long-term advantage beyond 15 to 20 years due to lower wear, though registry data at this timeframe is still accumulating for modern ceramics. I would discuss the ceramic-specific risks. Fracture occurs in 0.01 to 0.1 percent of modern BIOLOX Delta ceramics, which is very rare but requires urgent revision if it occurs. Squeaking affects 1 to 8 percent of patients, though less than 0.1 percent require revision for squeaking. Squeaking is usually benign and related to transient lubrication disruption or edge loading. For a marathon runner, I would address activity level specifically. The excellent wear properties of ceramics mean that high activity does not accelerate wear as it would with polyethylene. However, I would counsel that running marathon distances after THA is controversial regardless of bearing surface, as the main concerns are loosening and dislocation rather than wear. Most surgeons would recommend transitioning to lower-impact activities. I would also discuss ceramic-on-polyethylene as an alternative, which provides lower wear than metal-on-polyethylene while avoiding liner fracture and squeaking risks, though with slightly higher wear than ceramic-on-ceramic. Ultimately, the decision is shared. Given his profile, I would recommend ceramic-on-ceramic with a 36-millimeter head for optimal dislocation protection without excessive trunnionosis risk, with careful attention to optimal cup positioning at 40 degrees inclination and 15 degrees anteversion.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Young active patients (under 55) are ideal candidates for ceramic
Wear rate 10x lower than XLPE, essentially zero osteolysis
10-year survivorship equivalent to XLPE (95-97%)
Ceramic-specific risks: fracture 0.01-0.1%, squeaking 1-8%
36mm head optimal (dislocation protection vs trunnionosis balance)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not mentioning fracture or squeaking risks (must discuss ceramic-specific complications)
✗Recommending running post-THA without discussing controversy
✗Not mentioning ceramic-on-XLPE as alternative option
✗Forgetting to discuss optimal cup positioning for ceramic success
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if this patient says he is worried about squeaking?"
"How would your recommendation change if he were 70 years old?"
"What cup position would you aim for and why?"

CERAMIC BEARING SURFACES

High-Yield Exam Summary

Material Properties

  • •Alumina (Al2O3): ionic/covalent bonding, Vickers hardness over 2000
  • •Grain size under 2 microns, purity 99.7%, hot isostatic pressing
  • •Extremely hard (10x metal) but brittle (no plastic deformation)
  • •Manufacturing: sintering 1600-1800C, HIP eliminates porosity

Ceramic Types

  • •Pure alumina: first/second generation, fracture 0.1-0.2%
  • •Zirconia: discontinued (tetragonal to monoclinic transformation in vivo)
  • •BIOLOX Delta: 82% alumina, 17% zirconia, 0.5% chromium (current standard)
  • •Zirconia platelets: crack deflection, 50% higher toughness

Wear Performance

  • •Ceramic-on-ceramic: under 0.005mm/year (10x lower than XLPE)
  • •Particle size: under 0.05 microns (below osteolysis threshold)
  • •No osteolysis with well-functioning bearings (particles too small)
  • •Stripe wear: edge loading causes visible wear stripe and squeaking

Fracture Risk

  • •Modern ceramics (BIOLOX Delta): 0.01-0.1% fracture rate
  • •Causes: edge loading (steep cup), impingement, neck impaction, edge damage
  • •Prevention: optimal cup position (40° inclination, 15° anteversion)
  • •Technique: gentle head impaction, careful handling

Squeaking

  • •Incidence: 1-8%, usually benign, rarely requires revision (under 0.1%)
  • •Causes: edge loading, stripe wear, lubrication failure, impingement
  • •Most resolve spontaneously or remain asymptomatic
  • •Prevention: optimal cup positioning, avoid edge loading

Clinical Indications

  • •Ideal: young active patients (longest lifespan, ultra-low wear)
  • •Alternative: metal sensitivity, revision for osteolysis
  • •Contraindications: high fracture risk (obese, dysplasia requiring steep cup)
  • •Ceramic-on-XLPE option: lower fracture concern, no squeaking, moderate wear
Quick Stats
Reading Time288 min
Related Topics

Articular Cartilage Structure and Function

Bending Moment Distribution in Fracture Fixation

Biceps Femoris Short Head Anatomy

Biofilm Formation in Orthopaedic Infections