CERAMIC BEARING SURFACES
Alumina | Zirconia | BIOLOX Delta | Wear Performance | Fracture Risk
Ceramic Types in Arthroplasty
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.
HARDCeramic Material Advantages
Memory Hook:Ceramics are HARD: Hardness extreme, Abrasion resistant, Reaction minimal, Durable bearing!
SINECeramic Fracture Risk Factors
Memory Hook:Ceramic fracture SINE: Steep cup, Impingement, Neck impaction, Edge damage!
AZCBIOLOX Delta Components
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):
- Powder preparation: Ultra-pure Al2O3 powder (99.7% purity)
- Pressing: High pressure compaction into green body
- Sintering: Heating to 1600-1800C fuses grains
- Hot isostatic pressing: Simultaneous high temperature and pressure in argon eliminates porosity
- Machining: Diamond tools create precise geometry
- 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
| Component | Volume % | Grain Size | Function | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alumina matrix (Al2O3) | 82% | less than 0.5 microns | Primary load-bearing phase, provides hardness and wear resistance | Rigid 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% | Nanoscale | Grain growth inhibitor during sintering | Pins grain boundaries, prevents excessive grain growth, maintains small grain size |
| Strontium oxide (SrO) | 0.5% | Trace | Radiographic marker for identification | Radiopaque, 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)
Classification
Classification by Ceramic Type
Ceramics used in arthroplasty classified by chemical composition:
Classification by Material Composition
| Type | Chemical Formula | Key Properties | Clinical Use | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alumina (Aluminum Oxide) | Al2O3 | Extreme 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% SrO | Combines alumina hardness with zirconia toughness (5-6 MPa√m), no phase transformation | Current standard for ceramic bearings (2000s-present) | CURRENT GOLD STANDARD (optimal balance wear resistance and fracture toughness) |
Classification by Generation (Historical Evolution)
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
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
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)
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
| Combination | Wear Rate | Fracture Risk | Squeaking | Indications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 fracture | None (no ceramic-on-ceramic contact) | Compromise option: Lower fracture concern than CoC, lower wear than MoXLPE, no squeaking |
| Ceramic-on-conventional PE | Moderate: 0.05-0.08 mm/year (similar to metal-on-PE) | Head fracture only | None | HISTORICAL ONLY (discontinued, no benefit over metal-on-XLPE, avoid) |
| Zirconia-on-PE | Variable (initially low, increases after phase transformation) | Head fracture risk, phase transformation causes roughening | None | DISCONTINUED (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
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
| Bearing | Wear Rate | Fracture Risk | Squeaking | Clinical Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ceramic-on-ceramic | under 0.005 mm/year | 0.01-0.1% | 1-8% | Young active patients, optimal choice |
| Ceramic-on-XLPE | 0.02-0.04 mm/year | Head fracture only | None | Compromise option, lower fracture concern |
| Ceramic-on-conventional PE | 0.05-0.08 mm/year | Head fracture only | None | Historical, 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
| Mechanism | Metal-on-XLPE | Ceramic-on-Ceramic | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adhesive wear | Moderate | Very low | Ceramic hardness prevents material transfer |
| Abrasive wear | High (third-body) | Very low | Ceramic resists scratching from PMMA/metal debris |
| Fatigue wear | Moderate (XLPE) | None | Ceramic 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.
Management

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
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:
- Gentle impaction: Use controlled, gradual force (NO forceful strikes)
- Optimal positioning: Cup 40° inclination, 15° anteversion (minimize edge loading)
- 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:
-
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
-
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
-
Wrong impactor: Metal instrument directly on ceramic
- Prevention: ONLY use manufacturer-provided plastic/soft metal liner impactor
-
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:
-
Wet taper: Fluid on taper reduces friction, head slides excessively, creates radial cracks
- Solution: ALWAYS dry taper completely before head insertion
-
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
-
Contaminated taper: Cement, metal debris, bone fragments prevent full seating
- Solution: Meticulous cleaning of taper before head placement
-
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)
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.
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
| Fixation | Immediate Postop | 6 Weeks | 3 Months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cemented | Full weight-bearing | Full | Unrestricted |
| Uncemented (press-fit) | Weight-bearing as tolerated | Full | Unrestricted |
| Uncemented (hybrid) | Partial weight-bearing | Full | Unrestricted |
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:
- Incidence: 1-8% of ceramic hips may squeak at some point
- Usually benign: Under 0.1% require revision for squeaking
- Timing: May occur weeks to years postoperatively
- Triggers: Standing from seated, stair climbing, specific movements
- What to do: Report to surgeon but reassurance that usually not concerning
- Red flags: Pain, grinding, functional loss (these need investigation)
Documenting this discussion preoperatively manages patient expectations.
Follow-Up Schedule
| Timepoint | Clinical Assessment | Radiographs | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 weeks | Wound check | Not routine | Early complication screening |
| 6 weeks | ROM, function, squeaking | AP pelvis, lateral hip | Component position, early integration |
| 3 months | Pain, function | Optional | Intermediate recovery |
| 1 year | Comprehensive (HHS/OHS) | AP pelvis | Baseline established |
| Annually | Clinical | AP 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
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 Measure | Ceramic-on-Ceramic | Metal-on-XLPE | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oxford Hip Score (12mo) | 42-44/48 | 42-44/48 | No difference |
| Harris Hip Score (12mo) | 90-95/100 | 90-95/100 | No difference |
| SF-36 Physical (12mo) | Improved | Improved | No difference |
| Return to activity (6mo) | 85-90% | 85-90% | No difference |
| Patient satisfaction | 92-95% | 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.
Evidence Base
Ceramic-on-Ceramic Long-Term Outcomes
- 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
BIOLOX Delta vs Pure Alumina Fracture Risk
- 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)
Ceramic vs XLPE Wear Rates in THA
- 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)
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 Scenario: BIOLOX Delta Microstructure
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Classification and Selection
"Examiner asks: How do you classify ceramic bearings used in total hip arthroplasty? What is the current gold standard and why?"
Viva Scenario: Investigating Ceramic Squeaking
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Bearing Selection in Young Patient
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Ceramic Head Impaction Technique
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Managing Ceramic Hip Squeaking
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Postoperative Squeaking Counseling
"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?"
Viva Scenario: Bearing Selection Discussion
"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."
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