ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2020
What Is the Frequency of Fracture of Ceramic Components in THA? Results from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of Forte versus Delta ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty using a national database.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fourth-Generation Ceramic-On-Ceramic THA With Anatomic and Tapered Femoral Stems: 11-Year Follow-Up.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Fourth-generation Ceramic Head Fracture in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report and Literature Review.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Article
- Material-Intrinsic NIR-Fluorescence Enables Image-Guided Surgery for Ceramic Fracture Removal.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Article
- Effect of Femoral Head Material, Surgeon Experience, and Assembly Technique on Simulated Head-Neck Total Hip Arthroplasty Impaction Forces.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2024Article
- Ceramic fragmentation after total hip arthroplasty: two case reports and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Head, acetabular liner composition, and rate of revision and wear in total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Ceramic-on-Ceramic or Metal-on-Polyethylene: The Bearing of Choice after Ceramic Component Fracture in Total Hip Arthroplasty along with Concise Follow-Up of the Previous Cohort.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Revision total hip arthroplasty by a ceramic bearing surface after a third- and fourth-generation ceramic head or liner fracture.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Acetabulum Prosthesis' Lining Damage Zone with Different Implanting Angle.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
- Do Not Postpone Revision of Worn Conventional Liners in Ceramic-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty: A New Dramatic Failure.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- National Trends in Total Hip Arthroplasty Bearing Surface Usage in Extremely Young Patients Between 2006 and 2016.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeramic bearings in THA have been used to reduce wear and, more recently, to avoid metals in the bearing because of the risk of metal ions adverse effects. Potential disadvantages to ceramic bearings are their brittleness and the ceramic fracture risk, which may lead to revision surgery. The frequency of revision for a fracture ceramic bearing, however, has not been thoroughly studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the frequency of revision for a fractured ceramic bearing in ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) THAs, and is there any difference between alumina ceramics and alumina matrix composites (AMC)? (2) What are the factors associated with this complication? (3) To what extent did the patients who underwent revision for a fractured ceramic bearing undergo subsequent revisions, and for what reason?
methodsThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has collected data on hip arthroplasty since 1987 and has a completeness of reporting of 97.3% for primary THAs and 93.3% for revision. From 1997 to 2017, 146,171 primary THAs were registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 31,479 had a CoP articulation and 5790 had a CoC articulation. Two manufacturers produced ceramic heads; one produced 25,678 alumina heads and the other made 2465 alumina heads. All 7901 AMC heads were made by the same manufacturer. Patients who underwent CoP THA were a median (range) of 63 years old (11 to 98) and CoC THA were a median (range) 61 years old (17 to 95); 38% (11,833 of 31,479) of the patients who underwent CoP THA and 41% (2379 of 5790) of the patients who underwent CoC THA were males. Femoral heads made of alumina (n = 28,143), zirconia (n = 1225), and AMC (n = 7901) ceramics were used. To assess revision frequency, we identified patients who underwent revision because of fracture of a ceramic head and/or liner, and calculated the Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision for fracture in CoC and CoP articulations. Alumina ceramics and AMC were compared. In terms of factors potentially associated with revision, patient factors (age, sex, and diagnosis), type of articulation (CoP or CoC), femoral head size, and femoral head/neck length were evaluated with Cox regression models to evaluate any association with ceramic fracture and a Poisson regression to compare alumina and AMC head fractures. To evaluate subsequent revisions, hips that were revised for ceramic fracture were evaluated for any further revisions; Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of further revisions was calculated, and revision causes were identified.
resultsSurvivorship free from revision for ceramic fracture was 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 99.9) for CoP bearings, and 99.8% (95% CI 99.6 to 100) for CoC bearings at 10 years, with 7467 and 1884 hips at risk in the two groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for ceramic head fracture was 3.6 (95% CI 1.7 to 7.6) for CoC compared with CoP. The risk of fracture was greater for alumina ceramics than for AMC heads (adjusted HR 14.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 47.0]; p < 0.001). Factors that were associated with revision for fracture of a ceramic head were male sex (HR 5.2 [95% CI 2.6 to 10.4]; p < 0.001), a CoC articulation compared with CoP (HR 3.6 [95% CI 1.7 to 7.6]; p = 0.001), a 28-mm femoral head compared with a 32-mm head (HR 2.7 [95% CI 1.1 to 6.4]; p = 0.02), and short head/neck length compared with a medium head/neck length (HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.1 to 5.3]; p = 0.03). Five of 50 patients undergoing revision for ceramic fracture underwent further revisions, resulting in a 5-year survivorship free from re-revision of 86% (95% CI 74.4 to 98.0). The reasons for re-revision were infection (n = 2), another ceramic head fracture (n = 2), and cup loosening (n = 1).
conclusionsFracture of a ceramic THA bearing is rare and seems to affect about one in 1000 patients who receive such a bearing. To minimize the risk of this complication, surgeons should avoid small femoral heads (< 32 mm) and the shortest head/neck lengths. Surgeons should also know that the risk is increased in CoC articulations and in males. Bearings made of AMC appear to be at lower risk than those made from alumina ceramics. However, the long-term clinical wear performance of AMC bearings has not been extensively studied and should be studied further. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.