Alumina-on-alumina bearings have been accepted as a valuable alternative for young and active patients. Alumina fractures, and socket loosening were the main complications reported. But, with the increasing number of prostheses implanted, noise occurrence appeared as a new concern. The primary aim of the present study was to quantify the prevalence of noticing noise in a population having received alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty as well as its eventual impact on outcome.

Two hundred and eighty-four ceramic-on-ceramic hips were performed in 238 patients from January 2003 to December 2004. The average age was 52.4±13.4years (range, 13 to 74years). All the hips received the same prosthesis (Ceraver-Osteal™) with alumina bearing components (Ceraver-Osteal™): 32mm liners were used for cups of 50mm or larger and 28mm liners for cups smaller than 48mm; the minimal alumina thickness was 6mm. The acetabular component (Cerafit™) was hemispherical, coated with a hydroxyapatite layer and press-fit fixed. The stem (Cerafit™) was a straight tapered cementless stem, fully coated with a hydroxyapatite layer. Clearance between femoral head and liner was between 20 and 50 microns. A retrospective survey was conducted by an independent surgeon who did not participate to surgery in 2007. He conducted phone interviews of patients using a standard questionnaire. No suggestion was offered on how they could describe the noise and they felt free to use the word that they considered to be the most adapted. Satisfaction was evaluated. When the noise was present, X-rays were taken to assess if sign of bearings fracture was present.

Four patients (six hips) died of unrelated causes during the follow-up period. Three patients (three hips) live outside France and could not be followed (1.3%). Nine patients (10 hips) could not be traced and were considered lost to follow-up (3.8%). Two hundred and twenty-two patients with 265 hips, therefore, were included (nine using bearing components in 28mm diameter and 265 in 32mm). Twenty-eight hips experienced noise generation (10.6%). It was defined as a snap for six patients, as a cracking sound by six, as rustling by six patients, as a squeaking by seven patients (2.6%), a tinkling by two patients, one patient was unable to define the sound she felt. No factor related to the patient influenced the occurrence of noise. Twelve patients were dissatisfied with the result of their hip prosthesis, five of them experienced noise (41.7%); 210 were satisfied or very satisfied, 23 of them experiencing noise (11%); this difference was significant (P=0.002).

The origins of noise occurrence are unknown. Squeaking may be related to generation of stripe wear and absence of sufficient lubrication. Other types of noise can be due to microseparation, occult dislocation, impingement between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim.

Level IV. Retrospective study.