Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed with a Contemporary Alumina-on-Alumina Bearing Surface; Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up Study


Article Preview

Limitation in liner and head options available to the surgeon may be the most practical disadvantage of alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty (THA). This may be more problematic in the revision THA. We evaluated the results of 57 revision THAs (average, 46.2 years old) performed with a contemporary alumina-on-alumina bearing surface after a 5-year minimum follow-up (average, 67 months; range, 60-85 months). A third generation alumina-on-alumina bearing (BIOLOX® forte, CeramTec AG) and a cementless PLASMACUP®-BiCONTACT® hip revision system (AESCULAP AG & Co.) had been used in all patients. Alumina bearing was chosen for a relatively young active patient in whom an acetabular bone defect was not severe and an extremely long neck of artificial head was not required for the restoration of hip joint mechanics. The average Harris hip score improved from 65.0 points to 88.9 points. No implant loosened, no stem or cup was re-revised, and no additional reoperations were required. Ceramic wear was undetectable in 14 hips where differentiation of the femoral head from the cup was possible on radiographs and no osteolysis was observed. During the follow-up period, no hip demonstrated signs of infection or ceramic failure. Short-term results of revision THAs performed with analumina-on-alumina bearing are encouraging. We believe that physiological age and activity level of a patient, severity of acetabular bone loss, and availability of alumina head and liner options required for the restoration of proper limb length and joint stability should be considered to choose this alumina bearing surface during the revision THA.



Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 309-311)

Main Theme:

Edited by:

Takashi Nakamura, Kimihiro Yamashita and Masashi Neo




J. J. Yoo et al., "Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed with a Contemporary Alumina-on-Alumina Bearing Surface; Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up Study", Key Engineering Materials, Vols. 309-311, pp. 1353-1356, 2006

Online since:

May 2006




[1] W.H. Harris: Clin Orthop 311 (1995), p.46.

[2] T.P. Schmalzried, M. Jasty and W.H. Harris: J Bone Joint Surg Am 74 (1992), p.849.

[3] O.M. Mahoney and J.H. 3rd Dimon: J Bone Joint Surg Am 72 (1990), p.663.

[4] M. Hamadouche, P. Boutin, J. Daussange, M.E. Bolander and L. Sedel: J Bone Joint Surg Am 84 (2002), p.69.

[5] H.B. Skinner: Clin Orthop 369 (1999), p.83.

[6] B.E. Bierbaum, J. Nairus, D. Kuesis, J.C. Morrison and D. Ward: Clin Orthop 405 (2002), p.158.

[7] J. D'Antonio, W. Capello, M. Manley and B. Bierbaum: J Arthroplasty 17 (2002), p.390.

[8] P. Bizot, D. Hannouche, R. Nizard, J. Witvoet and L. Sedel: J Bone Joint Surg Br 86 (2004), p.190.

[9] J.J. Yoo, Y.M. Kim, K.S. Yoon, K.H. Koo, W.S. Song and H.J. Kim: J Bone Joint Surg Am 87 (2005), p.530.

[10] R.L. Barrack, C. Burak and H.B. Skinner: Clin Orthop 429 (2004), p.73.

[11] J.A. D'Antonio, W.N. Capello, L.S. Borden: Clin Orthop 243 (1989), p.126.

[12] J.A. D'Antonio, J.C. McCarthy, W.L. Bargar, L.S. Borden, W.N. Capello, D.K. Collis, M.E. Steinberg, J.H. Wedge: Clin Orthop 296 (1993), p.133.

[13] W.G. Paprosky, P.G. Perona, J.M. Lawrence: J Arthroplasty 9 (1994), p.33.

[14] W.H. Harris: J Bone Joint Surg Am 51 (1969), p.737.