Revision total hip arthroplasty performed with a contemporary alumina-on-alumina bearing surface; Minimum 5-year follow-up study

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 (R) forte, CeramTec AG) and a cementless PLASMACUP (R)-BiCONTACT (R) 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 an alumina-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.