Ceramic On Ceramic Vs Metal On Metal Hip

Any hip replacement device with either a metal socket or ball will result in metal wear particles in your bloodstream.

Ceramic on ceramic vs metal on metal hip. The extreme hardness of this type of ceramic offers greater scratch resistance than the conventional implants used in conventional hip replacements 1 ceramic on ceramic surfaces have demonstrated significantly lower wear versus conventional plastic on metal hip systems in the laboratory 2 therefore it is anticipated that these improved wear. A ceramic versus metal femoral head on a polyethylene lin. Ceramic is one of the best materials that can be used in a hip replacement but when paired with a metal socket it quickly falls to the back of the pack. A ceramic femoral head and a ceramic lining ceramic on ceramic in addition during june 2011 the fda approved a new ceramic on metal system.

Following the massive depuy recall of metal on metal hip implants ceramic hips are fast becoming the implant of choice. Metal on metal versus ceramic on polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age. The metasul group included thirty patients with a mean age of forty. Ese groups after a minimum duration of follow up of twelve years.

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between ceramic on ceramic total hip replacement and metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty in comparable groups of young. Ceramic hip replacement systems made of durable ceramic oxides of metal offer both advantages and disadvantages over hip replacement systems made of metal or polyethylene among the advantages of ceramic hip replacements are their durability and that they don t release metal debris into the body which can occur with metallic artificial hips. The world s first ceramic on metal hip implant has been given approval by the fda usa food and drug administration. Thirty nine metal on metal cementless hip replacements with a 28 mm diameter metasul articulation were compared with a control group that included thirty nine cementless ceramic on polyethylene hip replacements performed with a 28 mm diameter head.

A comparative study with twelve to fourteen year follow up. Thirty nine cementless hip arthroplasties using metal on metal articulation were consecutively implanted in 30 patients less than 50.