Abstract
There are pros and cons of all bearing surface options for our young patients. I pick the bearing surface for my young patients trying to maximise durability and minimise risks.
For the ultra-young, ≤30 years of age patient, I use ceramic-on-ceramic. The pros of this are the best wear couple available and a favorable track record (with well designed implants). The risks can be minimised: fracture risk now decreased, runaway wear minimised with good surgical technique, impingement problems minimised with good technique and well designed implants, as well as squeaking is minimised with good design (majority of reported squeakers are of one designed socket).
I don't use metal-on-metal because I am not willing to subject young patients to potentially 50+ years of high metal ion exposure.
I also don't use HCLPE. This would be okay from a biologic standpoint but I still have concerns about long-term wear durability. So the marked superior wear characteristics of ceramic-ceramic win in my view.
For my middle age patients, 30–60, I use HCLPE I don't use ceramic-ceramic because at some point between 30 and 60 years of age the improved wear properties are outweighed by their potential risks (fracture, impingement, squeak). HCLPE at short F/U (<15 years) appears to be durable, reliable with good wear properties so it is a reasonable choice. Using a ceramic head versus CoCr provides minimal improvement in wear properties in the lab but no marked advantage in vivo. Concerns persist about cobalt-chrome corrosion so I use ceramic heads in the majority of patients
For patients under age 60 the wear characteristics of HCLPE appear very favorable and one doesn't assume other risks seen in with metal-on-metal and ceramic-ceramic. Little justification for a hard-on-hard bearing in this patient subgroup. I use ceramic heads in majority to avoid corrosion issues.
