Design Rationale for Acetabular Cups with alternative Bearings and large Diameter Heads

  • Jürg Oehy
  • M. Shen
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgical interventions in medicine with more than 1.3 million THA procedures performed worldwide in 2006. Long-term studies of selected patient cohorts [38,50,53] and hip registries in Sweden and Norway have demonstrated good survivorship rates up to ten years followed by a significant drop during the second decade. To date, younger and more active patients who have longer life expectancies and higher levels of activity are demanding more with respect to durability and functionality of a THA. Hence, development in further improving the THA will be desirable to better suit the needs of current and future THA patients.


Femoral Head Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Femoral Head Size Alternative Bearing CoCrMo Alloy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berry DJ, et al (2005) Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 87-A:2456–2463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bitsch R, et al (2007) Reduction of osteolysis with crosslinked polyethylene at five years. 74th Annual Meeting AAOS, paper 208.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bizot P, et al (2004) Hybrid alumina total hip arthroplasty using a press-fit metal-backed socket in patients younger than 55 years. A six-to 11-year evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86-B:190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burroughs BR, et al (2005) Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. An in vitro study. J Arthroplasty 20(1):11–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collier JP, et al (2003) Comparison of cross-linked polyethylene materials for orthopaedic applications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 414:289–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark IC, et al (2005) Severe simulation test for run-in wear of all-alumina compared to alumina composite THR. In: D’Antonio JA, Dietrich M (eds) Bioceramics and alternative bearings in joint arthroplasty, Darmstadt, Steinkopff, pp 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crowninshield RD, et al (2004) Biomechanics of large femoral heads. What they do and don’t do. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:102–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Antonio JA, et al (2005) Five-year experience with Crossfire® highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:143–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Antonio J, et al (2005) Alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty. Five-year results of a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:164–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delaunay CP (2004) Metal-on-metal bearings in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(8, suppl 3):35–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Digas G, et al (2007) Five years experience of highly cross-linked polyethylene in cemented and uncemented sockets: Two randomized studies using radiostereometric analysis. 53rd Annual Meeting ORS: poster 392.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorr LD, et al (2005) Clinical performance of a Durasul highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liner for total hip arthroplasty at five years. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 87-A:1816–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dowson D, et al (2004) A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints. J Arthroplasty 19(8, suppl 3):124–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dumbleton JH, et al (2002) A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(5):649–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumbleton JH, et al (2006) The basis for a second-generation highly crosslinked UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:265–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garino JP (2000) Modern ceramic-on-ceramic total hip systems in the United States. Early results. Clin Orthop Rel Res 379:41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geller JA, et al (2006) Large diameter femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene. Minimum 3-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:53–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldsmith AAJ, et al (1999) A comparative joint simulator study of the wear of metal-on-metal and alternative materials combinations in hip replacement. Proc Instn Mech Engrs Part H 214:39–47.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ha YC, et al (2007) Cementless alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 years. A 5-year minimum follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 22(2):184–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hendrich C, et al (2006) Highly crosslinked ultra molecular weight polyethylene-(UHMWPE-) acetabular liners in combination with 28 mm BIOLOX® heads. In: Benazzo F, Falez F, Dietrich M (eds) Bioceramics and alternative bearings in joint arthroplasty. Darmstadt, Steinkopff, pp 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herberts P and Malchau H (1997) How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop Rel Res 34:44–60.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobs M, et al (2004) Three-to six-year results with the Ultima metal-on-metal hip articulation for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(7):48–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jasty M, et al (1997) Wear of polyethylene acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. An analysis of one hundred and twenty-eight components retrieved at autopsy or revision operations. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 79-A:349–358.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kabo JM, et al (1993) In vivo wear of polyethylene acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg (B) 75-B:254–258.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim SY, et al (2004) Cementless Metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 86-A:2475-2481.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurtz SM, et al (2006) Anisotropy and oxidative resistance of highly crosslinked UHMWPE after deformation processing by solid-state ram extrusion. Biomaterials 27:24–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kurtz SM, et al (2006) Significance of in vivo degradation for polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 453:47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levy RN, et al (1995) Outcome and long-term results following total hip replacement in elderly patients. Clin Orthop 316:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lombardi AV, et al (2004) Mid-term results of a polyethylene-free metal-on-metal articulation. J Arthroplasty 19(7):42–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manning DW, et al (2005) In vivo comparative wear study of traditional and highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(7):880–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marcucci M, et al (2006) 28mm head in ceramic/ceramic total hip replacement. In: Benazzo F, Falez F, Dietrich M (eds) Bioceramics and alternative bearings in joint arthroplasty. Darmstadt, Steinkopff, pp 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McKellop H, et al (1999) Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res 17(2):157–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Migaud H, et al (2004) Cementless metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age. Comparison with a matched control group using ceramic-on-polyethylene after a minimum 5-year follow-up.J Arthroplasty 19(8, suppl 3):23–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morrey BF (1997) Difficult complications after hip joint replacement. Dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:179–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mulholland SJ, Wyss UP (2001) Activities of daily living in non-western cultures: range of motion requirements for hip and knee joint implants. J Rehabilitation Research 24:191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muratoglu OK, et al (2001) A novel method of crosslinking ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. J Arthroplasty 16(2):149–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muratoglu OK, et al (2001) Larger diameter femoral heads used in conjunction with a highly crosslinked ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. J Arthroplasty 16(8, Suppl. 1):24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Older J, (2002) Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. A worldwide retrospective review at 15 to 20 years. J Arthroplasty 17(6):675–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oonishi H, et al (2006) Wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cup in Japan. J Arthroplasty 21(7):944–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pfister AJ (2003) Total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearing surface in younger patients —a one to six-year follow-up. Doctoral thesis, Basel University, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reitinger A, et al (2003) Clinical eight to ten years results with the cementless Alloclassic/Metasul (2nd generation) hip total endoprosthesis. Orthopädische Praxis 39(9):544–547.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rieker CB, et al (2001) In-vitro comparison of the two hard-hard articulations for total hip replacements. Proc Instn Mech Engrs Part H 215:153–160.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rieker CB and Koettig P (2002) In vivo tribological performance of 231 metal-on-metal hip articulations. Hip International 12(2):73–76.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saito S, et al (2006) Midterm results of Metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(8):1105–1110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sanchez-Sotelo J, et al (2006) Hospital cost of dislocation after primary hip total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 88-A:290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmalzried TP, et al (2000) Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:36–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Semlitsch M, et al (1997) Clinical wear behaviour of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene cups paired with metal and ceramic ball heads in comparison to metal-on-metal pairings of hip joint replacements. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 211 (part H):73–87.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Singh U and Wason SS (1988) Multiaxial orthotic hip joint for squatting and cross-legged sitting with hip-knee-ankle-foot-orthosis. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 12:101–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smith TM, et al (2005) Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with large heads may prevent early dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:137–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sochart DH (1999) Relationship of acetabular wear to osteolysis and loosening in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:135–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    St John KR, et al (1999) Comparison of two cobalt-based alloys for use in metal-on-metal hip prostheses: Evaluation of the wear properties in a simulator. In: Disegi JA, Kennedy RL, Pillar R (eds) Cobalt-base alloys for biomedical applications, ASTM STP 1365:145–155.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tipper JL, et al (1999) Quantitative analysis of the wear and wear debris from low and high carbon content cobalt chrome alloy used in metal on metal hip replacements. J Mat Sci: Materials in Medicine 10:353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Urban JA, et al (2001) Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 83-A:1688–1694.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wannomae KK, et al (2006) In vivo oxidation of retrieved cross-linked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene acetabular components with residual free radicals. J Arthroplasty 21(7):1005–1011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Willert HG (1977) Reactions of the articular capsule to wear products of artificial joint protheses. J Biomed Mater Res 11(2): 157–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Willmann G (2000) Ceramic femoral head retrieval data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 379:22–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yoo JJ, et al (2005) Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty. A five-year minimum follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 87-A:530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zagra L, et al (2004): THA ceramic-ceramic coupling: The evaluation of the dislocation rate with bigger heads. In: Lazennec JY, Dietrich M (eds) Bioceramics in joint arthroplasty, Darmstadt, Steinkopff, pp 163–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürg Oehy
    • 1
  • M. Shen
  1. 1.Zimmer OrthopedicsWinterthurSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations