Skip to main content

Mid-term outcomes of the R3™ delta ceramic acetabular system in total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Whilst bony fixation of hip replacement has stable solutions, there remains controversy over which bearing best optimizes longevity and function. Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing combinations are associated with lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and dislocation. Evidence for long-term functional outcomes of modern, 4th generation CoC bearings is limited. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes and complications of the R3™ Acetabular System (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Cordova, TN, USA) in combination with BIOLOX® Delta ceramic femoral head in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

Between June 2009 and May 2011, 175 patients (178 hips) were enrolled into a prospective, study at 6 sites in Europe and prospectively followed-up at 3 months and 1, 3, 5, and 7 years postoperative.

Results

Total WOMAC score improved from 63 (range, 22–91) preoperative to 8 (range, 0–8) at 1-year follow-up and remained unchanged at 7-year follow-up. Modified Harris hip score improved from 45 (range, 10–87) preoperative to 83 (range, 25–100) at 3 months, 91 (range, 42–100) at 1 year, and 92 (range, 46, 100) at 7 years. UCLA Activity Rating Scale score improved from 3.3 (range, 1–8) preoperative to 6.2 (range, 2–8) at 1 year; it marginally declined to 5.8 (range, 3–8) at 7-year follow-up. There were 4 trochanteric fractures and 5 patients died of unrelated reasons. Three hips were revised (2 periprosthetic fractures and 1 subluxation). The 7-year cumulative survival rate was 98.3%.

Conclusion

Clinical and functional improvements of THA with CoC bearing are maintained at 7 years postoperative.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03566082, Registered 10 January 2018—retrospectively registered,

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopedic interventions [1]. Although the number of successful operations performed each year is increasing, THA is not without risk. Debris from metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) components has been associated with osteolysis, a serious complication which can lead to pain, prosthesis loosening, and periprosthetic fracture [2]. Metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings have been associated with the release of corrosion debris resulting in adverse local tissue responses [3, 4]. More recently, there has been increasing concern over the generation of metal particles from the taper junction in MoP bearings.

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings provide an alternative bearing choice. Although corrosion debris may still occur with ceramic bearings, the magnitude of the corrosion is less than that observed in other bearing combinations [5]. Excellent results for the CoC bearing have been published; however, long-term data is still lacking, and the CoC bearing has provided a low rate of wear which is beneficial especially in young patients.

THA using CoC articulation is not a new concept and has been used for 30 years in prosthetic hip components [6, 7]. The type of ceramic used today is aluminum oxide, also known as alumina. The improved wear characteristics of alumina ceramic may result in a longer lasting implant [6, 8, 9] and may reduce the risk of ceramic fracture compared to earlier generations of ceramic materials.

Improvements in the ceramic material have continued the evolution of ceramic bearing technology. BIOLOX® delta represents the latest advancement in alumina ceramic technology due to the addition of zirconium oxide which provides the basic hardness and wear resistance, and strontium oxide and chromium oxide which provide the improved mechanical properties. Compared with pure aluminum oxide, ceramic BIOLOX delta offers higher mechanical properties including higher fracture toughness [10].

The R3™ BIOLOX delta Ceramic Acetabular System (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Cordova, TN, USA) is a CoC hip prosthesis consisting of a CoC acetabular bearing couple combined with a compatible metal shell and one of five commercially available Smith & Nephew femoral stems.

We report the mid-term clinical and functional outcomes of the R3™ Acetabular System with a BIOLOX delta CoC bearing option in patients undergoing primary THA.

Materials and methods

Patients

Between June 2009 and May 2011, 175 patients (178 THAs) from a larger prospective non-randomized study were enrolled at 6 investigational sites in Europe and were followed-up in clinic at 3 months and at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Key inclusion criteria were ages 18–75 years, primary THA required due to non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (e.g., osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, avascular necrosis, dysplasia/developmental dysplasia of the hip) or inflammatory joint disease (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis), and free of conditions that would pose excessive operative risk. Patients were excluded from the study if they had an active infection, sepsis, or acute hip trauma.

Outcome measures

Clinical outcomes were assessed by the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) [11, 12], the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC® 3.1) [13], and the UCLA Activity Rating Scale (UCLA ARS) [14].

Safety data collected were adverse events and device survivorship (revisions).

Follow-up

This was a pre-planned study of 7 years duration. Five-year follow-up was available for 66.0% (115/175) of THAs and 7-year follow-up was available for 62% (106/172) THA. Unfortunately, elderly subjects are difficult to maintain in follow-up.

Statistical analysis

Changes in scores by follow-up visit were analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Post hoc comparisons with pre-surgical values were performed using Tukey adjustment. Device survivorship was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator. All analyses were made using SAS/STAT® software, Version 9.4 for PC, ©2017 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Ethical approval

All investigative sites obtained approval from their corresponding ethics committees. All patients signed an informed consent document prior to participating in the study.

Results

Demographics and operative characteristics

The primary preoperative diagnosis was osteoarthritis (84.7%), followed by osteonecrosis (9.5%) and dysplasia (2.9%). Operative time was 64.3 min (SD 21.3 min, range 35 to 160 minutes). A minimally invasive approach was used in 44.9% of the surgeries. An anterolateral approach was used in 70 (39.33%), transgluteal in 44 (24.72%), and posterolateral in 64 (35.96%). Average age at the time of surgery was 63.4 years (SD 9.0, range 27 to 75 years), and 65.7% were females. Average body mass index (BMI) was 28.3 (SD 5.0, range 19.0 to 44.4).

Survival rate

There were three revisions, all of which occurred within 45 days of primary THA. Two revisions were due to periprosthetic femoral fracture and one due to subluxation. The cumulative incidence of revision at 7 years was 1.69% (95% C.I. 0.55 to 5.15%) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Cumulative incidence of revision at 7 years

Harris hip score

Modified HHS improved at first follow-up visit at 3-month postoperative compared to pre-operative value (p < .0001). The score further improved and reached peak value at 1-year compared to 3-month follow-up (p < .0001). The score was maintained at last follow-up at 7 years (Table 1, Fig. 2).

Table 1 Clinical and patient outcomes by follow-up
Fig. 2
figure2

Modified Harris hip score by follow-up visit

WOMAC score

WOMAC score improved at first follow-up visit at 3-month postoperative compared to pre-operative value (p < .0001). The score further improved and reached peak value at 1-year compared to 3-month follow-up (p < .0001). After 1-year follow-up, there was a marginal decline in score. Statistically, the score at 7-year follow-up was lower than at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.0230) (Table 1, Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure3

WOMAC score by follow-up visit

UCLA ARS

The activity level measured by the UCLA ARS score improved at the first follow-up visit at 3-month postoperative compared to the preoperative value (p < .0001). The UCLA ARS score further improved and reached peak value at the 1-year follow-up compared to the 3-month follow-up (p < .0003). After 1-year follow-up, there was a marginal decline in score. Statistically, the score at the 7-year follow-up was lower than at the 1-year follow-up (p = 0.0032) (Table 1, Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure4

UCLA activity rating scale score by follow-up visit

Complications

Three patients died by 5-year follow-up and an additional 2 by 7-year follow-up due to causes unrelated to the hip surgery. There were four trochanteric fractures and one superficial infection. There were no cases of breakage.

Discussion

In this prospective study, the R3™ Acetabular System with a BIOLOX delta CoC bearing in patients undergoing primary THA resulted in favorable clinical and patient outcomes and an adequate safety profile. Compared to their pre-operative baseline, patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvements in mHHS, UCLA ARS score, and WOMAC scores at all intervals through 7 years.

Results from previous clinical studies have evidenced the safety and functional benefits of using CoC bearing surfaces [15]. The introduction of BIOLOX delta was in an effort to make the material more resistant to fracture when compared to the BIOLOX forte compound [16]. The hard-on-hard nature of the CoC bearing has been implicated in the production of audible noise from the joint that can be described as squeaking. The instance of revision for this reason has been found to be 0.2% in the meta-analysis by Owen et al. [17] and registry data has shown revision rates of 0.1% [18].

BIOLOX delta is the 4th generation of alumina ceramic, and this generation has demonstrated increased material density and grain size five times smaller than the 3rd generation articulation [19, 20]. The unique feature of R3 ceramic liners is that they have a titanium support ring around the periphery of the liner. The support ring offers greater protection against chipped edges and tensile forces for the ceramic insert that result in high fatigue and burst performance for insert assembly [21]. Lab tests have shown that the burst strength of these liners is significantly higher than that of traditional ceramic liners with no band [22].

The revision rates in this study compare favorably with those in registry reports. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [23] demonstrates a cumulative incidence of revision of CoC THA of 3.1% at 5 years and 4.9% at 10 years. The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [24] reports a cumulative revision rate for uncemented THA utilizing the CoC bearing of 2.3% at 5 years and 3.7% at 10 years. Recent analysis has shown that the increased failure rates of this combination in the NJR may be significantly affected by the rates of ceramic fracture. The high rates in the registry may be at odds with the reported revisions in this study due to the improved characteristics of the ceramic and surgeon experience in implanting this bearing combination.

In a recent study using data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the CoC bearings had better survival compared to metal-on-poly (MoP) bearings but worse survival compared to ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoXPE). The study however did not stratify analysis by the ceramic generation [25]. Further, the study also shows that the longevity of the prosthesis depends on the patient gender, age, head size, and stem fixation. These same factors were identified in a meta-analysis of 5321 hips [15].

Numerous recent studies have reported results that corroborate our findings. Several recent studies reported survival rates of 99.3% or higher. Buttaro et al. retrospectively reviewed 880 patients (939 hips) who underwent THA with delta CoC. There was one liner fracture, two early loosening of cups, one fracture of a femoral ball head, and one case of squeaking. Survival rate was 99.3% at mean follow-up of 5.3 years [26]. Fulin et al. evaluated 163 patients (197 hips) who underwent THA with BIOLOX delta CoC. Survival rate was 99.5% at 7.7 years for stem revision and 100% for cup revision [27]. In a prospective study of 246 patients (274 THAs) who underwent THA with delta CoC, Lee et al. reported no ceramic malseating or fracture and 8 cases of noise at 5 years. There were two revisions, one for periprosthetic fracture and one for recurrent dislocation. Survival rate was 99.6% at 8 years postoperative [28]. Kim YH et al. evaluated 277 patients (334 hips) aged 50 years or younger who underwent THA with delta CoC. Thirty-three hips had clicking and 2 had squeaking. There was no osteolysis or ceramic head or liner fracture. There was one revision. Survival rate was 99.7% at mean 7.8 years follow-up [29].

Other recent studies reported survival rates ranging from 90.5 to 98.5%. In a registry study, Castagnini et al. analyzed 327 revision hips with BIOLOX delta CoC. There were 26 re-revisions due to recurrent dislocations, aseptic cup loosening, and septic loosening. There were no ceramic fractures. Survival rate for delta CoC bearings was 90.5% at 7 years [30]. In a prospective study of 345 patients who underwent THA with delta CoC, Hamilton et al. reported 3 liner fractures and 26 cases of squeaking. There were 2 revisions for liner fracture, 4 for stem loosening, and 3 for deep infection. Survival rate was 96.9% at 6 years [31]. Baek et al. analyzed 91 patients (94 hips) who underwent THA with delta CoC. There were no ceramic fractures, but there was 1 perioperative dislocation, 2 postoperative periprosthetic fractures, and 3 cases of clicking. There were two revisions, one for liner dissociation and one for postoperative periprosthetic fracture. Survival rate was 96.8% at 5 years for reoperation and 97.9% for revision [32].

Four studies reported survival rates of 98.5% or 98.6%. Cho et al. retrospectively reviewed 242 patients (263 hips) who underwent THA with BIOLOX delta CoC. There were four revisions, one for recurrent dislocation, one for failed osteointegration, one for infection, and one for liner fracture. Survival rate was 98.5% at mean 5.2 years follow-up [33]. Luo et al. retrospectively analyzed 127 patients (135 hips) who underwent THA with BIOLOX delta CoC. There was 1 postoperative ceramic liner rim fracture and 13 hips had squeaking. Survival rate for revision was 98.5% at mean 70 months [34]. Aoude et al. analyzed 133 consecutive THAs utilizing delta CoC. There were no ceramic fractures or chipping. There were two revisions, one for infection and one for dislocation. The survival rate was 98.5% at mean follow-up of 6 years [35]. In a retrospective study of 667 patients (749 hips) who underwent THA utilizing BIOLOX delta CoC, Lim et al. reported 2 ceramic liner fractures and 48 hips with clicking or squeaking. Other complications were 1 deep infection, 1 dislocation, 3 iliopsoas tendonitis, and 6 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Survival rate was 98.6% at mean 6.5 years [36].

Lastly, Kim SC et al. performed a comparison of outcomes of 3rd-generation and 4th-generation CoC articulations in THA using registry data. Four hundred eighty-two patients (602 hips) underwent either forte (310 hips) or delta (292 hips) CoC THA. There were six dislocations in the forte group and one in the delta group. One ceramic head fracture occurred in the forte group. Clicking or squeaking occurred in 22 forte patients and 21 delta patients. There were 9 revisions, and survival rates were 98.4% and 98.6% at 5 years for the forte and delta groups, respectively [37].

The reduction in wear rates of CoC bearings when compared to polyethylene have been well documented and the relatively bioinert debris produced from the CoC bearing when compared to polyethylene debris provides the advantage of reducing aseptic loosening due osteolysis [38]. The improvements in the manufacture of ceramic have also shown a reduction in the wear rates with the BIOLOX forte compound showing steady state wear rates of 1.2 mm3 per million cycles, in contrast to the BIOLOX delta which demonstrated wear rates of only 0.12 mm3 per million cycles [39]. The mean wear rates from BIOLOX forte retrievals after a minimum of 6 months in situ were reported to be 0.6 mm3 per year for femoral heads and 0.5 mm3 per year for acetabular liners [40]. It has been suggested that with these low wear rates, any aseptic revision may be more related to the fixation of the components rather than to bearing wear [18]. One of the disadvantages of the ceramic combination is the potential for ceramic fracture, which has been reported to range from 0.01 to 3.5% [41,42,43]. In a meta-analysis of 10,571 THAs in 45 studies, Yoon et al. found the rate of ceramic fracture at postoperative 2.0 to 18.8 years was 0.5% in the forte group and 0.2% in the delta group (p = .059). Per 1000 patient years, the rate of ceramic fracture was 0.9 in the forte group and 0.5 in the delta group (p = .072). The authors found no significant associations between incidence of fracture and length of postoperative time, patient age, or BMI [44].

Conclusion

The improvements in baseline scores and low complication rate provide support for use of the R3 BIOLOX delta Ceramic Acetabular System for patients undergoing primary THA.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AOANJRR:

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BMI:

Body mass index

CoC:

Ceramic-on-ceramic

CoXPE:

Ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene

mHHS:

Modified Harris hip score

MMRM:

Mixed model for repeated measures

MoM:

Metal-on-metal

MoP:

Metal-on-polyethylene

NJR:

National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

SD:

Standard deviation

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

UCLA ARS:

University of California, Los Angeles Activity Rating Scale

WOMAC:

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

References

  1. 1.

    Knight SR, Aujla R, Biswas SP. Total hip arthroplasty-over 100 years of operative history. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2011;3(2):e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Howie DW, Neale SD, Haynes DR, Holubowycz OT, McGee MA, Solomon LB, et al. Periprosthetic osteolysis after total hip replacement: molecular pathology and clinical management. Inflammopharmacology. 2013;21(6):389–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Van Der Straeten C, De Smet KA. Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014. Hip Int. 2016;26(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Di Laura A, Hothi HS, Meswania JM, Whittaker RK, de Villiers D, Zustin J, et al. Clinical relevance of corrosion patterns attributed to inflammatory cell-induced corrosion: a retrieval study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017;105(1):155–64.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    MacDonald DW, Chen AF, Lee GC, Klein GR, Mont MA, Kurtz SM, et al. Fretting and corrosion damage in taper adapter sleeves for ceramic heads: a retrieval study. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(9):2887–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hu CY, Yoon TR. Recent updates for biomaterials used in total hip arthroplasty. Biomater Res. 2018;22:33.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hannouche D, Zaoui A, Zadegan F, Sedel L, Nizard R. Thirty years of experience with alumina-on-alumina bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):207–13.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Naughton M. Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty have high survivorship at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):373–81.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Khanna R, Ong JL, Oral E, Narayan RJ. Progress in wear resistant materials for total hip arthroplasty. Coatings. 2017;7(7):99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Good V, Ries M, Barrack RL, Widding K, Hunter G, Heuer D. Reduced wear with oxidized zirconium femoral heads. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(Suppl 4):105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(6):578–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):228–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Yin S, Zhang D, Du H, Du H, Yin Z, Qiu Y. Is there any difference in survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with different bearing surfaces? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(11):21871–85.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Piconi C, Maccauro G, Muratori F, Brach Del Prever E. Alumina and zirconia ceramics in joint replacements. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2003;1(1):19–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Owen DH, Russell NC, Smith PN, Walter WL. An estimation of the incidence of squeaking and revision surgery for squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement: a meta-analysis and report from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):181–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Varnum C, Pedersen AB, Kjærsgaard-Andersen P, Overgaard S. Comparison of the risk of revision in cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(4):477–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yoo JJ, Kim YM, Yoon KS, Koo KH, Song WS, Kim HJ. Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty. A five-year minimum followup study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:530–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bierbaum BE, Nairus J, Kuesis D, Morrison JC, Ward D. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:158–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Smith & Nephew. Design Rationale: R3 Acetabular System. 2017. https://www.smith-nephew.com/global/assets/pdf/products/surgical/r3_design_rationale_00438.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Scott M, Morrison M, Mishra SR, Jani S. A method to quantify wear particle volume using atomic force microscopy. ORS Transactions. 2002;27:132.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2019 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA; 2019. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/668596/Hip%2C+Knee+%26+Shoulder+Arthroplasty/c287d2a3-22df-a3bb-37a2-91e6c00bfcf0. Accessed 4 June 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR). 16th Annual Report. Hertfordshire UK: NJR; 2019. p. 2019. https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2016th%20Annual%20Report%202019.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Davis ET, Pagkalos J, Kopjar B. Effect of bearing surface on survival of cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Open Access. 2020;5(2):e0075.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Buttaro MA, Zanotti G, Comba FM, Piccaluga F. Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic: analysis of complications in 939 consecutive cases followed for 2-10 years. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(2):480–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fulin P, Pokorny D, Hert J, Sosna A. Results of 198 primary total hip arthroplasties using the Delta PF-FIT system with ceramic-on-ceramic articulating surfaces with average seven years follow up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):311.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lee YK, Lim JY, Ha YC, Kim TY, Jung WH, Koo KH. Preventing ceramic liner fracture after Delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03515-2 Online ahead of print.

  29. 29.

    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. Alumina delta-on-alumina delta bearing in cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients aged <50 years. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(3):1048–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Castagnini F, Bordini B, Tassinari E, Stea S, Ancarani C, Traina F. Delta-on-delta ceramic bearing surfaces in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2019;34(9):2065–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Blumenfeld TJ, Lesko JP, Himden SE, Dennis DA. Midterm results of delta ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(9 Suppl):110–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Baek SH, Kim WK, Kim JY, Kim SY. Do alumina matrix composite bearings decrease hip noises and bearing fractures at a minimum of 5 years after THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3796–802.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cho KJ, Park KS, Jang WY, Park CG, Yoon TR. Midterm results of fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2019;53(5):630–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Luo Y, Sun XF, Chen J, Cui W, Wang T. Could larger diameter of 4th generation ceramic bearing increase the rate of squeaking after THA?: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(52):e13977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Aoude AA, Antoniou J, Epure LM, Huk OL, Zukor DJ, Tanzer M. Midterm Outcomes of the recently FDA approved ceramic on ceramic bearing in total hip arthroplasty patients under 65 years of age. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(8):1388–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lim SJ, Ryu HG, Eun HJ, Park CW, Kwon KB, Park YS. Clinical outcomes and bearing-specific complications following fourth-generation alumina ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: a single-surgeon series of 749 hips at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2018;33(7):2182–2186.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kim SC, Lim YW, Jo WL, Park HW, Han SB, Kwon SY, et al. Fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic THA results in improvements in midterm outcomes compared to third-generation THA but does not resolve noise problems: a cohort study of a single-hip system. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):263.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Christel PS. Biocompatibility of surgical-grade dense polycrystalline alumina. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;282:10–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Stewart T, Tipper J, Streicher R, Ingham E, Fisher J. Long-term wear of HIPed alumina on alumina bearings for THR under microseparation conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12(10-12):1053–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lusty PJ, Watson A, Tuke MA, Walter WL, Walter WK, Zicat B. Wear and acetabular component orientation in third generation alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings: an analysis of 33 retrievals [corrected]. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2007;89(9):1158–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ha YC, Kim SY, Kim HJ, Yoo JJ, Koo KH. Ceramic liner fracture after cementless alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;458:106–10.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    D'Antonio JA, Pagnano MW, Naughton M, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Skeels MD, Franchi OJ, Backstein D. Controversies regarding bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 5):5–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Traina F, Tassinari E, De Fine M, Bordini B, Toni A. Revision of ceramic hip replacements for fracture of a ceramic component: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):e147.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Yoon BH, Park JW, Cha YH, Won SH, Lee YK, Ha YC, et al. Incidence of ceramic fracture in contemporary ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of proportions. J Arthroplast. 2020;35(5):1437–1443.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following surgeons for their contribution to this study:

Lucien CM Keijser, MD, PhD

Northwest Clinics Alkmaar

Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

Wilhelminalaan 12

1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands

Pablo Diaz-Freire, MD

Orthopaedic Surgeon, Hip Unit

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology

Hospital Universitario La Paz

Madrid, Spain

Enrique Gil-Garay, MD, PhD

Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Facultad de Medicina

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology

Hospital Universitario La Paz

Madrid, Spain

As well as Karen K. Anderson, Nor Consult, LLC for providing medical writing and editing services.

Funding

The study was funded by Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Edward T. Davis, Bart Van Backlé, Peter Gebuhr, Matthew P. Revell: acquisition of data, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approval of the final submitted version of the manuscript to be published, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Ville Remes: conception and design of study, acquisition of data, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approval of the final submitted version of the manuscript to be published, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Petri Virolainen: conception and design of study, acquisition of data, analysis or interpretation of data, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approval of the final submitted version of the manuscript to be published, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Branko Kopjar: revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approval of the final submitted version of the manuscript to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward T. Davis.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All investigative sites obtained approval from their corresponding ethics committees prior to data collection. All sites required patients to sign the approved informed consent document prior to participating in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Prof Edward T. Davis, MB, ChB, MSc, PGCME, FRCS(T&O) reports research funding and payment as speaker for Smith & Nephew, Inc. All other authors declare no potential competing interests. All other authors declare they have no potential competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, E.T., Remes, V., Virolainen, P. et al. Mid-term outcomes of the R3™ delta ceramic acetabular system in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 16, 35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02192-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bearing
  • Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC)
  • Complications
  • Delta ceramic
  • Modified Harris hip score (mHHS)
  • Outcomes
  • R3™ delta Ceramic Acetabular System
  • Total hip arthroplasty (THA)
  • UCLA Activity Rating Scale (UCLA ARS)
  • Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC®)