Logout successfull!
To overview page

New study: Ceramic hip resurfacing and implant stability

Hip resurfacing is known for preserving femoral bone stock. But the acetabular side has received less attention – and implant geometry matters there too.

A new 3D simulation study by Prof. Justin Cobb (Imperial College London) and his team Yuki Yamamuro, Simon Harris, Rima Nasser, and Amir Ardakani compared acetabular bone resection between the H1® cementless ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) hip resurfacing system and a conventional metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacing design across 12 hips with osteoarthritis (femoral head size ≥ 48 mm).

 

The results were published in an open-access article in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research.

 

Key findings:

 

  • The H1® cup required a mean bone resection volume of 11 cm³ vs. 17 cm³ for the conventional MoM design – a 35% reduction (p < 0.001).
  • H1® placement resulted in significantly less medialization (−1 mm vs. −6 mm), keeping the cup closer to the native hip center in all three dimensions.
  • Cup non-coverage ratio showed no significant difference between designs; bone preservation was not achieved at the expense of implant stability.

  • The H1® cup preserved more bone in all 12 hips, including both dysplastic and non-dysplastic cases.

     

The authors attribute these results primarily to the H1® cup's anatomical contour, which reduces the need for medialization to avoid rim overhang, a key driver of acetabular bone loss in resurfacing.

 

As with any simulation study, context matters: this was a retrospective 3D analysis with a small cohort (n = 12). While adequately powered for the primary outcome, the authors call for further validation in cadaveric or postoperative imaging studies before broader conclusions can be drawn.

 

The H1® ceramic-on-ceramic bearing is made with BIOLOX®delta by CeramTec. H1® is a product of Embody Orthopaedic, distributed by Zimmer Biomet.

 

📖 Yamamuro Y, Harris S, Nasser R, Ardakani A, Cobb J. Acetabular Bone Preservation in H1 Ceramic Hip Resurfacing: A Comparison With A Conventional Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2026;44:e70221. doi:10.1002/jor.70221.

 

Please check for regulatory approval in your country.

This post reflects CeramTec’s summary of a peer-reviewed scientific publication and does not constitute clinical guidance, risk prediction for individual patients, or product-related recommendations. For product, safety, and risk information, always refer to the labeling of the legal manufacturer. This post was drafted with AI assistance and approved by CeramTec. 

BIOLOX® LinkedIn