Squeaking in ceramic total hip joint replacements has become a controversial topic. This study aims to document the incidence of squeaking and other noise generation in a single surgeon series for ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements. Possible aetiological for squeaking causes are explored. All patients from public and private who received ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements (Stryker trident-accolade) from 2002 to 2007 were identified via the New Zealand Joint registry. Following ethics approval all patients were contacted for a phone interview to question as to whether they had noted any noise generation. Patients who demonstrated noise generation were reviewed in clinic for full history and examination. Data including age, sex, weight, primary diagnosis, head size and cup size were obtained from clinical notes. Post operative x-rays were reviewed to analyse cup abduction and version. Forty one ceramic total hip joint replacements in a total of thirty seven patients were reviewed via telephone interviews. Three patients complained of squeaking in the ceramic bearing while one patient complained of a grinding and one other of clicking. Two of the three who had recognised the squeaking were both able to reproduce the squeaking in the clinic room. The third patient was noted to have crepitus from anterior patello-femoral osteoarthritis. There was no statistical difference in age, weight, primary diagnosis or head size. In terms of abduction and version of the acetabular cups that squeaked, one had twenty seven degrees of ante-version and forty seven degrees of abduction and the other fifteen degrees of anteversion and thirty degrees of anteversion. Four cups lay outside the recommended fifteen-thirty five degrees of anteversion and thirty five-fifty five degrees of abduction yet showed no squeaking. Neither patient is troubled by the squeaking and neither would seek revision surgery. The incidence of squeaking in ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements appears to be around five percent with a similar number of patients experiencing other noises. The position of the acetabular cup does not appear to be the sole contributor to the noise and other aetiological causes need to be further investigated

In 1998, lysis / wear were the biggest concerns in THR. 3 distinct tacks emerged: Alternatives to polyethylene: Ceramic / Ceramic; Metal / Metal; Make a better polyethylene. MOM story is well known: bad ending!!. Large adoption of Ceramic / Ceramic: positives: low wear, benign MR findings, even low dislocation rates !! negatives: fractures still occurred, noise generation, liner malseating, metal transfer (edge effects). Crosslinked Polyethylene: Update: 13–15 year follow-up of 1st generation XLPE with remelted product: Annual wear rates of 0.004 (metal heads) 0.002 (ceramic heads)!. No lysis!! Wear rates for “standard” heads and large heads both low approaching the lower limits of detection!!. CONCLUSION: Crosslinked Polyethylene with Ceramic Heads: The Winner and Still Champion!

The following papers will be discussed during this session: 1) Staph Screening and Treatment Prior to Elective TJA; 2) Unfulfilled Expectations Following TJA Procedures; 3) Thigh Pain in Short Stem Cementless Components in THR; 4) Is the Direct Anterior Approach a Risk Factor for Early Failure?; 5) THA Infection - Results of a 2nd 2-Stage Re-implantation - Clinical Trial of Articulating and Static Spacers; 6) THA Revision - Modular vs. Non Modular Fluted Tapered Stems-Total Femoral Replacement for Femoral Bone Loss - Cage + TM Augment vs. Cup Cage for Acetabular Bone Loss; 7) Do Injections Increase the Risk of Infection Prior to TKA?; 8) Long-Acting Opioid Use Predicts Perioperative Complication in TJA; 9) UKA vs. HTO in Patients Under 55 at 5–7 years; 10) Stemming Tibial Component in TKA Patients with a BMI > 30; 11) The Effect of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty; 12) Oral Antibiotics and Reinfection Following Two-Stage Exchange; 13) Two-Stage Debridement with Prosthetic Retention for Acute TKA Infections; 14) Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict Meaningful Improvement after TKA; 15) Contemporary Rotating Hinge TKA; 16) Liposomal Bupivacaine in TKA; and 17) Noise Generation in Modern TKA: Incidence and Significance

Hard-on-hard bearing surface have been accepted as a valuable alternative for young and active patients needing a hip replacement because these combinations are resistant to wear. Initial development of alumina-on-alumina bearings faced complications such as fractures, and socket loosening. But, with the increasing number of prostheses implanted, noise occurrence appeared as a new complication. The primary aim of the present survey was to quantify the prevalence of having noise in a population receiving alumina-on-alumina hip arthroplasty. Two hundred and eighty-four ceramic-on-ceramic hips were performed in 238 patients (126 males and 112 females) from January 2003 to December 2004. The average age at the index operation was 52.4 ± 13.4 years (range, 13 to 74 years). We used the same type of prosthesis for all patients manufactured in all cases by Ceraver-Osteal. ®. Clearance between femoral and insert was between 20 and 50 microns in order to achieve minimal wear. The survey was conducted by an independent surgeon who did not participated in patients care during the last 6 months of 2007. He interviewed the patients by phone with a standardized questionnaire (appendix) that aimed to assess if noise was present and the characteristics of this noise if present. No suggestion was done on how they could describe the noise and they felt free to use the word that they considered to be the most adapted. Satisfaction was evaluated asking if the patient was very satisfied, satisfied or dissatisfied with its prosthesis. When the noise was present, the X-ray was independently evaluated to assess if sign of component fracture was present. Four patients (six hips) died of unrelated cause during the follow-up. Three patients (three hips) lived outside France and could not be followed (1.3%). Nine patients (ten hips) could not be traced and are considered lost to follow-up (3.8%). Two hundred and twenty-two patients with 265 hips were therefore surveyed. Among these 265 hips, 28 experienced noise generation (10.6%). It was defined as a snap for 6 patients, as a cracking sound by 6, as rustling by 6 patients, as a squeaking by 7 patients (2.6%), a tinkling by 2 patients, one patient was unable to define the sound she felt. No factor related to the patient influenced the occurrence of noise. Twelve patients were dissatisfied with the result of the hip prosthesis, 5 of them experienced noise (41.7%); 210 were satisfied or very satisfied 23 of them experienced noise (11%); this difference was significant (p=0.002). No patients required revision for noise. The origins of noise occurrence are unknown but several hypotheses can be suggested. Squeaking may be due to absence of sufficient lubrication. Other types of noise can be due to microseparation, occult dislocation, impingement between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim but demonstration remain an issue

The June 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Modular femoral necks: early signs are not good; is corrosion to blame for modular neck failures; metal-on-metal is not quite a closed book; no excess failures in fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures; noise no problem in hip replacement; heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy: are NSAIDs the answer?; thrombotic and bleeding events surprisingly low in total joint replacement; and the elephant in the room: complications and surgical volume.