I would welcome any objective analysis and comparative experiences of the various materials out of which full replacement installations are made. I wonder whether some are better than others for stability and lateral articulation , as well as the effects on length of stride and gait .

Hi there! My hip is a Stryker hip. Ceramic Ball with highly cross linked polyethelyne cup. I have had it for 6 1/2 years. Some say for wear and tear the best option is ceramic/ceramic but this is working well for me. I had a leg length issue prior to the surgery which became even more pronounced after the surgery. I have a heal lift to compensate for the leg length difference. I ended up getting a partial knee replacement this year. Damage to the knee was mostly related to a basketball injury in 2014. Still running . 🙂

Hi highlander,i have the same prothesis as Hipbrother Tom,the first op was in oktober 2016 and my second was done in September 2017. This year i have run six marathons or longer and i have no problems with my hips,soon i will have an xray to see if my active life have done any harm to the prothesis,my first thr have done over six miljon steps.
Hope you could understand my bad English, best regards Anders Jelander.

Highlander,
I’m sorry i didn’t see your question sooner. I looked up a few articles on hip replacement hardware and articulation surfaces. This is the one I found most helpful and current. I felt much better about my options and the materials my surgeon uses after having read this study.I myself had a ceramic head with a X-linked PE acetabular lining (Corail/Pinnacle). The Ceramic on Ceramic was the other option I was hoping would be available, but since this study found no significant indication of wear in the XLPE liners, I went ahead with the materials my surgeon was familiar with and had experience using.

I’m copy pasting the abstract but you may want to find the article. It’s worth the read. (apologies for the formatting – I couldn’t paste a screen capture so I had to paste unformatted text. I hope you can still read it…and more reason to look up the full article. I found it in PDF format and without charge)

I hd anterior THR this past May. My recovery is going well, if not as quickly as I hoped. I am jogging a few miles a day and have some long term goals I will be working towards over the coming year or so.

Best of luck to you!

Mark

HIP
Ten-year follow-up study of three alternative
bearing surfaces used in total hip
arthroplasty in young patients
A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A. Atrey,
S. E. Ward,
A. Khoshbin,
N. Hussain,
E. Bogoch,
E. H. Schemitsch,
J. P. Waddell
From University of
Toronto, Toronto,
Canada
 A. Atrey, MB BS, MSc, FRCS
(Tr&Orth), Assistant Professor,
Department of Surgery and
Division of Orthopaedics
 S. E. Ward, MD FRCSC,
Lecturer, Department of Surgery
and Division of Orthopaedics
 A. Khoshbin, MD,MSc,
FRCSC, Assistant Professor,
Department of Surgery and
Division of Orthopaedics
 E. Bogoch, MD, FRCSC,
Professor of Orthopaedics,
Division of Orthopaedics
 J. P. Waddell, MD, FRCSC,
Professor, Department of
Surgery and Division of
Orthopaedics
University of Toronto and St
Michael’s Hospital, 55 Queen
Street E, Level 8, Toronto,
Ontario M5C 1R6, Canada.
 N. Hussain, MSc., MD,
Resident Physician, Department
of Anesthesia
The Ohio State University,
Wexner Medical Center, 410 W
10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210,
USA.
 E. H. Schemitsch, MD,
FRCS(C), Richard Ivey Professor
and Chairman, Department of
Surgery
University of Western Ontario,
268 Grosvenor Street, Room E3-
116, London, Ontario, N6A 4V2,
Canada.
Correspondence should be sent
to A. Atrey; email:
atreya@smh.ca
©2017 The British Editorial
Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
doi:10.1302/0301-620X.99B12.
BJJ-2017-0353.R1 $2.00
Bone Joint J
2017;99-B:1590–.5
Received 24 March 2017;
Accepted after revision 29
August 2017

Aims
We present the ten-year data of a cohort of patients, aged between 18 and 65 years (mean
age 52.7 years; 19 to 64), who underwent total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomised
to be treated with a cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral head with an ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene (UHMWPE), highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or ceramic-on-ceramic
(CoC) bearing surface.
Patients and Methods
A total of 102 hips (91 patients) were randomised into the three groups. At ten years, 97 hips
were available for radiological and functional follow-up. Two hips (two patients) had been
revised (one with deep infection and one for periprosthetic fracture) and three were lost to
follow-up. Radiological analysis was performed using a validated digital assessment
programme to give linear, directional and volumetric wear of the two polyethylene groups.
Results
There was a significantly reduced rate of steady-state linear wear with XLPE (0.07 mm/yr)
compared with UHMWPE (0.37 mm/yr) (p = 0.001). Volumetric wear was also significantly
reduced in the XLPE group (29.29 mm3/yr) compared with the UHMWPE group (100.75mm3/
yr) (p = 0.0001). There were six patients with UHMWPE who had non-progressive osteolysis
and none in the XLPE group. All three bearing groups had significant improvements in 12-
item short form health survey scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities
Osteoarthritis Index score and Harris Hip Score. However, the improvement in HSS was
significantly less in the UHMWPE group (p = 0.0188) than in the other two groups.
At ten years, the rates of volumetric and linear wear in the XLPE group remain low and
predominantly below the estimated threshold for osteolysis (1 mm/yr). The rate of linear
wear in the XLPE group was three times less than in the UHMWPE group at five-year followup
and five times less at ten years. The rate of volumetric wear was also three times less in
the XLPE group at ten years.
Conclusion
While CoC also performs well, XLPE at ten years remains a safe and excellent bearing option
in young patients, with low rates of wear and no evidence of osteolysis.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1590–5.