Squeaking in a Delta ceramic-on-ceramic uncemented total hip arthroplasty

Squeaking in total hip arthroplasty has drawn clinical attention due to its impact on patient satisfaction. Earlier studies linked this issue to second-generation alumina ceramics paired with elevated metal rims. These rims were designed to prevent ceramic liner damage from femoral neck impingement. However, reports on squeaking remain limited to specific design combinations. No prior work had resolved whether newer ceramic materials could also experience this complication. This gap motivated further investigation into the relationship between ceramic generation and squeaking. That uncertainty drove the need to examine newer implants without elevated metal rims. No prior work had resolved whether third-generation ceramics could also squeak. This case highlights the importance of design factors beyond ceramic type.

The aim was to report a case of squeaking in a third-generation ceramic-on-ceramic hip implant without an elevated metal rim. This complication had previously been tied to second-generation ceramics and specific cup designs. The patient presented with squeaking at 23 months post-surgery. The goal was to expand understanding of squeaking beyond known design factors. No prior work had resolved whether newer ceramics could also squeak. This case aimed to demonstrate that newer materials are not immune to this issue. The researchers sought to highlight the need for continued monitoring of implant designs. This case aimed to contribute to the evolving literature on hip implant complications.

The study involved a single patient with a third-generation Biolox Delta ceramic-on-ceramic implant. The implant lacked an elevated metal rim in the cup. Clinical evaluation included patient history and physical examination. Radiographic imaging was used to assess implant positioning and wear. No laboratory testing was performed. The case was compared to prior reports of squeaking in second-generation implants. The researchers analyzed design differences between the implants. The focus was on the absence of an elevated metal rim as a potential factor.

The patient experienced squeaking at 23 months post-surgery. The implant used was a third-generation Biolox Delta ceramic-on-ceramic system. The cup did not feature an elevated metal rim. This contrasts with prior reports linking squeaking to second-generation implants. The complication was not related to ceramic fracture or dislocation. Radiographic findings showed no signs of wear or loosening. The squeaking was persistent and audible during movement. This case suggests that newer ceramic materials can also produce this complication.

The authors concluded that newer ceramic-on-ceramic implants can also experience squeaking. This case demonstrates that the complication is not limited to second-generation materials. The absence of an elevated metal rim may contribute to the issue. No prior work had resolved whether third-generation implants could squeak. The findings suggest that design factors beyond ceramic type matter. The authors propose that implant geometry influences squeaking risk. This case adds to the literature on hip implant complications. The authors emphasize the need for continued monitoring of newer implant designs.