Ceramic-on-Ceramic in Total Hip Replacement Revision

Davide Cucchi; Martin Gathen; Robert Streicher; Dieter Christian Wirtz

doi:10.1055/s-0043-124767

Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Table of Contents

Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156(03): 272-280
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124767

Review/Übersicht

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Keramik-Keramik-Gleitpaarung in der Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenks

Article in several languages: English | deutsch

Authors

Davide Cucchi

¹Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Germany
Martin Gathen

¹Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Germany
Robert Streicher

²Dr. Streicher GmbH, Feusisberg, Switzerland
Dieter Christian Wirtz

¹Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Germany

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Die Anwendung von modernen Keramik-Keramik-Gleitpaarungen (Ceramic-on-Ceramic, CoC) in der primären Hüftendoprothetik ist zunehmend und gut dokumentiert. Sie hat ihren Stellenwert insbesondere bei jungen und aktiven Patienten und zeigt Vorteile hinsichtlich Biokompatibilität, Abriebrate und Lubrikationseigenschaft. Dagegen ist die Gleitpaarung in der Revisionsendoprothetik seltener genutzt und unzureichend untersucht. Ziel dieser Übersichtsarbeit ist eine Analyse der vorliegenden Literatur zu CoC-Gleitpaarungen in der Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenks.

Material und Methoden Es erfolgte eine systematische Literaturrecherche der MEDLINE-Datenbank, wobei ausschließlich Artikel in englischer Sprache eingeschlossen wurden. Die initiale Suche ergab 555 Artikel, die nach Analyse definierter Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien auf 26 reduziert wurden und zur Metaanalyse dieser Arbeit eingeschlossen werden konnten.

Ergebnisse In den analysierten Studien wurden insgesamt 1846 Operationen eingeschlossen, wobei keine Level-I-Studie identifiziert werden konnte. In 18 Studien wurde auf Revisionen mit Verwendung von CoC-Gleitpaarungen bei 111 Patienten aufgrund unterschiedlicher Indikationen eingegangen. Bei insgesamt 6 dieser Studien wurden Outcome-Parameter mittels Harris Hip Score (HHS) oder eines anderen Scoring-Systems erhoben, sodass hier eine quantitative Datenanalyse durchgeführt werden konnte. Die Zeitspanne des Follow-ups lag bei 2,1 – 19 Jahren mit einer mittleren Nachuntersuchungsdauer von 9,3 Jahren. Es zeigte sich ein gutes funktionelles Ergebnis, mit einem kumulativen Mittelwert für den HHS von 87 Punkten. Die Luxationsrate lag bei 3,45% und das Risiko eines Keramikbruchs des Aluminiumoxidkopfes bei 0,35% (1 Studie). Squeaking wurde als Komplikation der CoC-Gleitpaarung bei Revisionen in 3 Studien berichtet, mit einer kalkulierten Inzidenz von 0,52%.

Schlussfolgerung Moderne CoC-Gleitpaarungen zeigen in präklinischen und retrospektiven Studien im Revisionsfall Vorteile und sind eine vielversprechende Alternative zu herkömmlichen Verfahren. Dies gilt insbesondere für jüngere Patienten und Wechselsituationen mit erhöhtem Luxationsrisiko, Zementallergien, Protheseninfektion und stattgehabten Keramikbrüchen. Es fehlen randomisierte kontrollierte Studien, die Gleitpaarungen hinsichtlich Luxationsraten, Materialversagen oder klinischem Outcome vergleichen, um eine optimale Lösung im Revisionsfall empfehlen zu können.

Schlüsselwörter

Revisionsendoprothetik - Keramik-Keramik - Gleitpaarungen - Metaanalyse

Full Text

References

References/Literatur
1 National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man Editorial Board. 12th Annual Report 2015. Im Internet: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/12th annual report/NJR Online Annual Report 2015.pdf; Stand: 19.06.2017
2 Graves S. AOANJRR Committee. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry: Annual Report 2015. Im Internet: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/de/annual-reports-2015 Stand: 19.06.2017
3 Ong KL, Lau E, Suggs J. et al. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 3070-3076
4 Khatod M, Cafri G, Inacio MCS. et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 359-366
5 Graves S. AOANJRR Committee. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry: Annual Report 2016. Im Internet: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/de/annual-reports-2016 Stand: 19.06.2017
6 Kurtz SM, Lau EC, Baykal D. et al. Outcomes of ceramic bearings after revision total hip arthroplasty in the medicare population. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 1979-1985
7 Boutin P. [Total arthroplasty of the hip by fritted aluminum prosthesis. Experimental study and 1st clinical applications]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1972; 58: 229-246
8 Mittelmeier H. [New development of wear-resistant ceramic and metal composite prostheses with ribbed support shafts for cement-free implantation]. Hefte Unfallheilkd 1975; 126: 333-336
9 Buttaro MA, Zanotti G, Comba FM. et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic: analysis of complications in 939 consecutive cases followed for 2–10 years. J Arthroplasty 2016; 32: 480-486
10 Sedel L. Evolution of alumina-on-alumina implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 379: 48-54
11 Lee YK, Yoon BH, Choi YS. et al. Metal on metal or ceramic on ceramic for cementless total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 2637-2645
12 Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K. et al. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 379: 1199-1204
13 Cole JC, Lemons JE, Eberhardt AW. Gamma irradiation alters fatigue-crack behavior and fracture toughness in 1900H and GUR 1050 UHMWPE. J Biomed Mater Res 2002; 63: 559-566
14 Baker DA, Hastings RS, Pruitt L. Study of fatigue resistance of chemical and radiation crosslinked medical grade ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 46: 573-581
15 Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. Isolated revision of an acetabular component to a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing in patients under 50 years of age. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1197-1203
16 Pitto RP, Sedel L. Periprosthetic joint infection in hip arthroplasty: is there an association between infection and bearing surface type?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 2213-2218
17 Gallo J, Stewart T, Novotny R. et al. Early fracture of a plasma cup ceramic liner: a case report and surface analysis. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2007; 151: 341-346
18 Tso CY, Chiu KH, Cheung KW. Ceramic insert dislodgment after revision ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 660.e5-7
19 Sariali E, Stewart T, Mamoudy P. et al. Undetected fracture of an alumina ceramic on ceramic hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 658.e1-5
20 Lee SC, Jung KA, Nam CH. et al. Acetabular screw head-induced ceramic acetabular liner fracture in cementless ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2010;
21 Lee LH, Langton D, Green S. Adverse sequelae following revision of a total hip replacement for a fractured ceramic component: case report. SICOT-J 2015; 1: 28
22 Shafafy R, Foote J, Hargrove R. A novel technique for identification of fractured ceramic acetabular liner in total hip arthroplasty: a case report. Hip Int 2016; 25: 492-494
23 Hannouche D, Nich C, Bizot P. et al. Fractures of ceramic bearings: history and present status. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 417: 19-26
24 Allain J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Delecrin J. et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty performed after fracture of a ceramic femoral head. A multicenter survivorship study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A: 825-830
25 Traina F, Tassinari E, De Fine M. et al. Revision of ceramic hip replacements for fracture of a ceramic component: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: e147
26 Koo KH, Ha YC, Kim SY. et al. Revision of ceramic head fracture after third generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 214-218
27 Trebše R, Mihelič A, Levašič V. et al. Results of revision of total hip arthroplasty for alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearing fracture. Hip Int 2016; 26: 237-243
28 Schmidt-Braekling T, Renner L, Mintz DN. et al. Do changes in the production process affect the outcome of ceramic liners: a 3-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 32: 1314-1317
29 Matharu GS, Daniel J, Ziaee H. et al. Failure of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 416-418
30 Hannouche D, Delambre J, Zadegan F. et al. Is there a risk in placing a ceramic head on a previously implanted trunion?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 3322-3327
31 Chana R, Facek M, Tilley S. et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in young patients: outcomes and activity levels at minimum ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1603-1609
32 Seo BH, Ryu DJ, Kang JS. et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty using 3rd generation ceramic-on-ceramic articulation. Hip Int 2016; 26: 468-473
33 Chang JD, Kamdar R, Yoo JH. et al. Third-generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1231-1235
34 Jack CM, Molloy DO, Walter WL. et al. The use of ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in isolated revision of the acetabular component. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 333-338
35 Yoo JJ, Yoon PW, Lee YK. et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using an alumina-on-alumina bearing surface in patients with osteolysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 132-138
36 Kim Y, Kim YH, Hwang KT. et al. Isolated acetabular revision with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings using a ceramic head with a metal sleeve. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 2420-2423
37 Yang JH, Yang SJ, Kang JS. et al. Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty with ceramic articulation. Hip Pelvis 2015; 27: 223-231
38 Wong JML, Liu YL, Graves S. et al. What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3458-3464
39 Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen S. et al. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 256
40 Hu D, Tie K, Yang X. et al. Comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic to metal-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10: 22
41 Hernigou P, Homma Y, Pidet O. et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing decreases the cumulative long-term risk of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3875-3882
42 Guo L, Yang Y, An B. et al. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2016; 38: 123-129
43 Hernigou P, Roussignol X, Delambre J. et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic THA associated with fewer dislocations and less muscle degeneration by preserving muscle progenitors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3762-3769
44 Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A. et al. Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 793-798
45 Piconi C, Ionescu AC, Cochis A. et al. Bioceramic materials show reduced pathological biofilm formation. Key Eng Mater 2014; 631: 448-453
46 Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW. et al. Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected hip prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0139166
47 Wirtz DC. Ceramic-on-Ceramic in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. Kongressvortrag. Wien: Ceramtec Symposium, EFORT; 2017
48 Ganzer D, Forke L, Irlenbusch U. Two-year follow-up of revision total hip arthroplasty using a ceramic revision head with a retained well-fixed femoral component: a case series. J Med Case Rep 2014; 8: 434
49 de Thomasson E, Conso C, Mazel C. A well-fixed femoral stem facing a failed acetabular component: to exchange or not? A 5- to 15-year follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98: 24-29
50 Stathopoulos IP, Lampropoulou-Adamidou KI, Vlamis JA. et al. One-component revision in total hip arthroplasty: the fate of the retained component. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 2007-2012
51 Helwig P, Konstantinidis L, Hirschmüller A. et al. Modular sleeves with ceramic heads in isolated acetabular cup revision in younger patients-laboratory and experimental analysis of suitability and clinical outcomes. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 15-19
52 Preuss R, Haeussler KL, Flohr M. et al. Fretting corrosion and trunnion wear – is it also a problem for sleeved ceramic heads?. Semin Arthroplasty 2012; 23: 251-257
53 Owen DH, Russell NC, Smith PN. et al. An estimation of the incidence of squeaking and revision surgery for squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement: a meta-analysis and report from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 181-187
54 Levy YD, Munir S, Donohoo S. et al. Review on squeaking hips. World J Orthop 2015; 6: 812-820
55 Abdel MP, Heyse TJ, Elpers ME. et al. Ceramic liner fractures presenting as squeaking after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 27-31
56 Sentürk U, Perka C. [Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA)]. Z Orthop Unfall 2015; 153: 198-202
57 Rambani R, Kepecs DM, Mäkinen TJ. et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty for fractured ceramic bearings: a review of best practices for revision cases. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1959-1964
58 Gozzini PA, Schmid C, Dalla Pria P. Massive wear in a CoCrMo head following the fracture of an alumina head. Hip Int 2008; 12: 37-42