Factors affecting squeaking in metal on metal hip resurfacings

Arjuna Imbuldeniya*, Selin Munir, Jason Chow, William L. Walter, Bernard A. Zicat, William K. Walter

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


We reviewed 380 hip resurfacings cases between December 1999 and Dec 2012. 11 cases (2.89%) squeaked postoperatively. Mean follow-up was 88.6 months (19-130 months). Mean time to squeak was 11.3 months (3-22 months). Ten (91%) cases were male and nine (81%) cases had a Birmingham hip resurfacing. Cases were matched for age, gender, BMI and implant to three controls. Radiographs were analysed using EBRA (Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analysis, University of Innsbruck, Austria) software to evaluate cup orientation. There was no significant difference between the mean inclination angle of the cups (p = 0.26) or the mean anteversion angle (p = 0.29). There was no difference in serum cobalt (p = 0.20) or serum chromium (p = 0.45) levels at latest follow-up. Three of the 11 (27.3%) cases had revision surgery at a mean follow-up of 101 months (72-117 months). Squeaking was not influenced by patient demographic parameters and resolved in all cases that did not undergo revision surgery. Males with a resurfacing head size <50 mm had significantly increased odds of squeaking when compared to controls (odds ratio = 26.6; 95% CI = 1.2-573.3; p<0.05). Based on our findings, we do not recommend that squeaking on its own should be an indication for revision of hip resurfacing components.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)340-346
Number of pages7
JournalHIP International
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 13 May 2014
Externally publishedYes


  • Case-control
  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Hip resurfacing
  • Noise generation
  • Squeaking


Dive into the research topics of 'Factors affecting squeaking in metal on metal hip resurfacings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this