A Nomogram That Characterizes a Patient’s Odds of Developing Squeaking After Fourth-generation Ceramic-on-ceramic THA
Authors: Li Zhuo , Niu Er-Long , Fu Jun , Zhou Yong-Gang , Chai Wei , Hao Li-Bo , Chen Ji-Ying , Xu Chi 
Published: February 2023

Background

Although ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings result in the lowest wear rate of any bearing combination, postoperative squeaking remains worrisome. However, data concerning squeaking in long-term follow-up studies are still lacking, especially for fourth-generation CoC THA.

Questions/purposes

(1) After keeping the prosthesis in place for 10 years, what percentage of patients treated with fourth-generation CoC THA implants report squeaking, and are there points in time when squeaking occurs more frequently? (2) What are the characteristics, association with hip function, and factors associated with squeaking? (3) Can we create a nomogram that characterizes a patient’s odds of experiencing squeaking based on the factors associated with it?

Methods

Between January 2009 and December 2011, 1050 patients received primary THAs at our institution, 97% (1017) of whom received fourth-generation CoC THAs because this was the preferred bearing during this period. Of the 1017 eligible patients, 5% (54) underwent THAs performed by low-volume surgeons, 3% (30) were implanted with cemented prostheses, 2% (22) died, 1% (10) were immobile, 1% (six) underwent revision surgery, and 17% (169) were lost to follow-up before 10 years, leaving 726 patients for analysis here at a mean of 11 ± 1 years. In the study cohort, 64% (464) were male and 36% (262) were female, with a mean age of 44 ± 13 years at primary THA. We extracted data about articular noise from follow-up records in our institutional database and used a newly developed questionnaire to ascertain the percentage of patients who reported squeaking at the latest follow-up interval. Although not validated, the questionnaire was modeled on previous studies on this topic. The longitudinal pattern for squeaking was explored to find timepoints when squeaking occurs more frequently. Based on the questionnaire data, we calculated the percentages of frequent, reproducible, and avoidable squeaking. Hip function was evaluated with the Harris Hip Score and WOMAC score and compared between the squeaking and nonsqueaking groups. Factors associated with squeaking, which were examined in a multivariate analysis, were used to develop a nomogram.

Results

At 10 years, 16% (116 of 726) of patients reported squeaking. Two squeaking peaks were determined, at 0 to 1 year and 8 to 10 years. Frequent, reproducible, and avoidable squeaking accounted for 42% (36 of 86), 20% (17 of 86), and 41% (35 of 86), respectively. The mean Harris Hip Score (93 ± 4 versus 94 ± 5; p = 0.81) and WOMAC score (16 ± 13 versus 15 ± 13; p = 0.23) did not differ between patients with squeaking and those without. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as etiology and head offset, we found that patients younger than 46 years (odds ratio 2.5 [95% confidence interval 1.5 to 5.0]; p < 0. 001), those who were male (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.5]; p = 0.04), those having a total flexion and extension arc of less than 50° (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.3]; p = 0.02), and those with the Corail hip implant (OR 4.1 [95% CI 2.1 to 7.7]; p < 0. 001) were more likely to report squeaking. We created a nomogram that can be used at the point of care that can help clinicians identify patients at a higher risk of experiencing squeaking; this nomogram had good performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 77%).

Conclusion

As a potential late complication, squeaking after fourth-generation CoC THA is of concern and may be related to increased stripe wear. We recommend that surgeons use this nomogram to assess the odds of squeaking before selecting a bearing, especially in patients at high risk, to facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient satisfaction. Future external validation of the model is still needed to enhance its applicability.

Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.