Obesity is no longer a risk factor for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with a double-mobility cup

Body Mass Index Does Not Drive the Risk for Early Postoperative Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Instability remains the leading cause of revision following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of the present investigation was to determine whether an elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk of instability after primary THA.

METHODS

An administrative claims database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary THA for osteoarthritis between 2010 and 2022. Patients who underwent THA for a femoral neck fracture were excluded. Patients who had an elevated BMI were grouped into the following cohorts: 25 to 29.9 (n = 2,313), 30 to 34.9 (n = 2,230), 35 to 39.9 (n = 1,852), 40 to 44.9 (n = 1,450), 45 to 49.9 (n = 752), and 50 to 59.9 (n = 334). Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, as well as a history of spinal fusion, neurodegenerative disorders, and alcohol abuse, to controls with a normal BMI (20 to 24.9). A multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and additional risk factors for dislocation was used to evaluate dislocation rates at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Rates of revision for instability were similarly compared at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

No significant differences in dislocation rate were observed between control patients and each of the evaluated BMI classes at all evaluated postoperative intervals (all P values > .05). Similarly, the risk of revision for instability was comparable between the normal weight cohort and each evaluated BMI class at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively (all P values > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Controlling for comorbidities and known risk factors for instability, the present analysis demonstrated no difference in rates of dislocation or revision for instability between normal-weight patients and those in higher BMI classes.

Experience of an anatomic femoral stem in a UK orthopaedic centre beyond 20 years of follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Increasing interest in the use of anatomical stems has developed as the prevalence of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) continues to increase. The primary aim of this study was to determine the long-term survivorship and PPF rate of an anatomical femoral stem in a single UK centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2000 and 2002, 94 consecutive THAs were performed using the 170 mm Lubinus SP II anatomical femoral stem in our institution. Patient demographics, operative details and clinical outcomes were collected prospectively in an arthroplasty database. Patient records and national radiographic archives were reviewed finally at a mean of 21.5 years (SD 0.7) following surgery to identify occurrence of subsequent revision surgery, dislocation or periprosthetic fracture.

RESULTS

Mean patient age at surgery was 65.8 years (SD 12.5, 34-88 years). There were 48 women (51%). Osteoarthritis was the operative indication in 88 patients (94%). Analysis of all-cause THA failure demonstrated a survivorship of 98.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98.0-99.3%) at 10 years and 96.7% (94.5-98.9%) at 21 years. The 20-year stem survival for aseptic loosening was 100% with no cases of significant lysis found (lucent line > 2 mm) and no stems required revision. Patient demographics did not appear to influence risk of revision (p > 0.05). There were 2 revisions in total (2 for acetabular loosening with original stems retained). There were no PPFs identified at mean 21.5 year follow-up and 5 dislocations (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Lubinus SP II 170 mm stem demonstrated excellent survivorship and negligible PPF rates over 20 years following primary THA.

Experience of an Anatomic Femoral Stem in a United Kingdom Center - Excellent Survivorship and Negligible Periprosthetic Fracture Rates at Mean 12 Years Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

As the clinical burden of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) continues to increase, it has been suggested that the use of anatomical femoral stems may help reduce PPF risk. The primary aim of this study was to determine the survivorship and PPF rate of an anatomical femoral stem in a single center at minimum 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 1,000 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed using an anatomical femoral stem were identified from a prospectively collected arthroplasty database. Patient radiographs were reviewed finally at a mean of 12 years (range, 10 to 16 years) following surgery to identify any revision surgery, dislocations or PPFs. Mean patient age at surgery was 69 years (range, 24 to 93). There were 634 women (63%). Osteoarthritis was the operative indication in 946 patients (95%).

RESULTS

All-cause THA survivorship was 99.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 99.0-99.3%) at 10 years and 97.9% (CI, 97.8 - 98.0%) at 15 years. Stem survivorship at 10 years was 99.6% (CI, 99.5-99.7%) and at 15 years was 98.2% (CI, 98.1-98.3%). The 15-year stem survival for aseptic loosening was 100% with no cases of significant lysis found (lucent line >2mm). Implant survivorship was not significantly impacted by patient sex (P = .65), body mass index (P = .49), deprivation level (P = .284), operative indication (P = .33), or American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .374). There were 3 PPFs identified (0.3%) at mean 12-year follow-up and 15 dislocations (1.5%).

CONCLUSION

This anatomical femoral stem demonstrated excellent survivorship and negligible PPF rates at mean 12-year follow-up following primary THA.

Go Big or Go Home: Obesity and Total Joint Arthroplasty

Obesity is highly prevalent, and it is expected to grow considerably in the United States. The association between obesity and an increased risk of complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is widely accepted. Many believe that patients with body mass index (BMI) >40 have complications rates that may outweigh the benefits of surgery and should consider delaying it. However, the current literature on obesity and outcomes following TJA is observational, very heterogeneous, and full of confounding variables. BMI in isolation has several flaws and recent literature suggests shifting from an exclusively BMI <40 cutoff to considering 5 to 10% preoperative weight loss. BMI cutoffs to TJA may also restrict access to care to our most vulnerable, marginalized populations. Moreover, only roughly 20% of patients instructed to lose weight for surgery are successful and the practice of demanding mandatory weight loss needs to be reconsidered until convincing evidence exists that supports risk reduction as a result of preoperative weight loss. Obese patients can benefit greatly from this life-changing procedure. When addressing the potential difficulties and by optimizing preoperative assessment and intraoperative management, the surgery can be conducted safely. A multidisciplinary patient-centered approach with patient engagement, shared decision-making, and informed consent is recommended.

Comparing dislocation rates by approach following elective primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility components can be implanted during total hip arthroplasty (THA) for primary osteoarthritis via a direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA), or posterior/posterolateral approach (PLA). This review compares dual mobility hip dislocation rates using these approaches for elective primary THA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for articles published after January 1, 2006 that reported dislocation rates for adult patients after primary THA with dual mobility implants. Articles were excluded if they reported revision procedures, nonelective THA for femoral neck fractures, acetabular defects requiring supplemental implants, prior surgery, or ≤ 5 patients. The primary outcome was hip dislocation rate. Secondary outcomes included infection, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score.

RESULTS

After screening 542 articles, 63 met inclusion criteria. Due to study heterogeneity, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported DAA, 5 reported ALA, 6 reported the DLA, and 56 reported PLA. Study size ranged from 41 to 2,601 patients. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 25 years. Rates of infection and dislocation were low; 80% of ALA, 87.5% of DAA, 100% of DLA, and 82.1% of PLA studies reported zero postoperative dislocations. Studies reporting postoperative HHS and PMA scores showed considerable improvement for all approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary THA with dual mobility implants rarely experience postoperative dislocation, regardless of surgical approach. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to confirm these findings.

Dual-Mobility Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) were introduced in France more than 40 years ago and are increasingly used not only in hip revision but also primary hip arthroplasty. Due to a simulated large-head articulation and increased jumping distance, DMCs can contribute to a high range of motion in the hip joint and reduce the risk of instability. Numerous studies have reported low dislocation rates and high survival rates in the mid-term follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term data, especially on primary hip replacement, remain limited, and the effect of recent designs and material innovations is still unclear. Therefore, primary DMCs are mainly proposed in patients at high risk for dislocation (i.e. pelvitrochanteric insufficiency, compromised spinopelvic mobility, neuromuscular disorders, obesity and femoral neck fractures). Based on a review of recently published studies referring to these indications, the current study discusses the advantages and disadvantages of DMCs.

No dislocation and low complication rate for a modern dual mobility cup with pre-impacted femoral head in primary hip replacement: A consecutive series of 175 hips at minimum 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Despite its excellent results in preventing dislocation, the dual mobility cup (DMC) is still struggling to be adopted by some teams due to premature wear and loosening reported on first-generation implants. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the mid-term survivorship of a modern DMC with a pre-impacted head and the radio-clinical results at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study performed on patients who had a primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in 2016. The cup was a third-generation DMC with a pre-impacted femoral head. Clinical (harris hip score (HHS)) and radiological (cup abduction, anteversion, overhang, and radiolucent lines) results were recorded, as well as complications, particularly dislocations and survivorship. A minimum of five years of follow-ups was required.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five hips (167 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Five hips (2.9%, 5/175) were lost to follow-up and excluded from the postoperative analysis. The mean follow-up period was 70 ± 2.9 months [63.6-76.5]. Three cups needed revision surgery (1.8%, 3/170): one for septic loosening, and two for chronic infection. At 77 months, the global survival probability was 98.2% ± 1, and the survival probability excluding septic aetiology was 100%. There was a significant improvement in the HHS from pre-operatively (48.3 ± 6.0 [14.0-70.0]) to post-operatively (96 ± 4.5 [50-100]) (p < 0.0001). There were no postoperative dislocations recorded, nor any iliopsoas-impingement or symptomatic cam-effect.

DISCUSSION

This study showed excellent survival and good radiological and clinical results of this dual mobility cup at a mid-term follow-up. None of the patients had dislocation or any specific complication feared with dual mobility cups.

Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Obese Patient: Tips and Tricks and Review of the Literature

AIM

There is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of performing primary hip arthroplasty in obese patients and limited evidence. This article presents a series of considerations based on the authors' experiences as well as a review of the literature.

PREOPERATIVE CARE

In the preoperative phase, an informed consent process is recommended. Weight loss is recommended according to NHS England guidelines, and body habitus should be taken into account. When templating, steps are taken to avoid overestimating the implant size.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

During the surgical procedure, specialist bariatric equipment is utilised: bariatric beds, extra supports, hover mattresses, longer scalpels, diathermy, cell saver and minimally invasive surgery equipment. Communication with the anaesthetist and surgical team to anticipate is vital. Intraoperative sizing and imaging, if required, should be considered. Pneumatic foot pumps are preferable for VTE prophylaxis. Regional anaesthesia is preferred due to technical difficulty. IV antibiotics and tranexamic acid are recommended. The anterior and posterior surgical approaches are most frequently used; we advocate posterior. Incisions are extensile and a higher offset is considered intraoperatively, as well as dual mobility and constrained liners to reduce dislocation risk. When closing the wound, Charnely button and sponge should be considered as well as negative pressure wound dressings (iNPWTd) and drains.

POST-OPERATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

Postoperatively, difficult extubation should be anticipated with ITU/HDU beds available. Epidural anaesthetics for postoperative pain management require higher nursing vigilance. Chemical prophylaxis is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Despite being technically more difficult with higher risks, functional outcomes are comparable with patients with a normal BMI.

Greater risks of complications, infections, and revisions in the obese versus non-obese total hip arthroplasty population of 2,190,824 patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Obesity is an epidemic, especially in developed countries. This affects the general health of these patients, especially when they are having a major surgical procedure such as total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several articles have described the effects of obesity on THA with varying conclusions. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes, complications, and peri-operative parameters of THA in the obese (BMI≥30 kg/m²) vs non-obese (BMI<30 kg/m²) population as well as a subgroup analysis of morbidly obese (BMI≥40 kg/m²) vs non-obese population.

METHODS

A multi-database search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Data from studies assessing the outcomes and complications of THA in the obese and non-obese population were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis, consisting of 581,012 obese and 1,609,812 non-obese patients. Meta-analysis could not be performed on patient reported outcome measures due to heterogeneous reporting methods. Obese patients had a higher risk of all complications (OR = 1.53, 95%CI: 1.30-1.80, P < 0.001), deep infections (OR = 2.71, 95%CI: 2.08-3.53, P < 0.001), superficial infections (OR = 1.99, 95%CI: 1.55-2.55, P < 0.001), dislocations (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.66-1.79, P < 0.001), reoperations (OR = 1.61, 95%CI: 1.40-1.85, P < 0.001), revisions (OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.32-1.57, P < 0.001), and readmissions (OR = 1.37, 95%CI: 1.15-1.63, P < 0.001). When sub-group analysis of morbidly obese (BMI≥40 kg/m²) patients was performed, the risks of all these parameters were even greater.

CONCLUSION

Obese and morbidly obese patients are at higher risks of complications post THA than non-obese patients. Surgeons should be aware of these risks in order to counsel patients and adopt prophylactic strategies to reduce these risks where applicable.

Ten- to 16-Year Results of a Modern Cementless Dual-Mobility Acetabular Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to assess the radiographic results, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of a modern cementless dual-mobility cup (DMC) implant as a primary THA with a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

METHODS

This study retrospectively assessed a series of 310 primary THAs using a modern-generation cementless DMC (Saturne acetabular cup) between April 2001 and December 2005 at a single center. Patients were followed prospectively clinically and radiographically after surgery. Hips with follow-up less than 120 months were excluded from the study (5 lost to follow-up and 167 deceased). In total, a cohort of 138 hips were included for preoperative and postoperative analysis with an average follow-up of 152.4 months. All complications were collected, and a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in the mean Harris and Postel-Merle d'Aubigne scores between preoperative and postoperative cohorts (P < .001). No loosening of the cup and no acetabular osteolysis were found at final follow-up. No prosthetic dislocation, no intraprosthetic dislocation, and no infections were reported. The survival curve of THA in the total cohort (N = 310) was about 98% at 10 years with 3 stem revisions for femoral fracture. One psoas impingement was also described.

CONCLUSION

This study showed no acetabular component failure and no reported cases of acetabular osteolysis with this DMC acetabular component retention at 10 years. No prosthetic or intraprosthetic dislocation was reported.

Total hip arthroplasty in obesity: separating 'fat' from fiction

Obesity is a modern-day epidemic with increasing prevalence that is directly impacting the global burden of primary total hip arthroplasty. The risk of requiring total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis increases incrementally with increasing obesity class. Surgical intervention in obese patients presents a set of unique challenges that should be recognized by the treating medical team. Although predominantly satisfactory outcomes have been reported, perioperative anaesthetic and surgical concerns require thorough patient assessment. There is an increased potential risk of thrombogenic and septic complications, but the body mass index cutoff level beyond which total hip arthroplasty should not be offered in the obese patient remains controversial. Preoperative medical optimization of the patient and appropriate intraoperative interventions are essential to mitigate the risk of complications.

Influence of body mass index on sagittal hip range of motion and gait speed recovery six months after total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

In practice, obesity leads to poor functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, in clinical research, the influence of body mass index (BMI) on the gait recovery and kinematics for THA is not well documented. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of BMI on gait parameters pre-operatively and six months after THA for hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

METHODS

We included 76 THA for hip OA: non-obese group (G1): 49 (BMI &lt; 30 kg/²) and obese group (G2): 37 (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) with a control group of 61 healthy people. Clinical evaluation (HOOS) and a 3D gait analysis (gait speed and flexion range of the hip (ROM)) were performed before and six months after THA: The gains between the two visits were calculated and we looked for correlations between outcomes and BMI.

RESULTS

Preoperative gait speed and hip ROM were significantly lower in obese patients (speed G1: 0.81 ± 0.22 m/s vs. G2: 0.64 ± 0.23 m/s, p = 0.004 and hip ROM G1: 26.1° ± 7.3 vs. G2: 21.4° ± 6.6, p = 0.005), and obese patients were more symptomatic. At six months, gait speed and hip ROM were significantly lower for all patients compared with the control group. No correlation between gait velocity, hip ROM, and BMI was found. Biomechanical and clinical gains were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients, including obese patients, have significant functional improvement after THA, objectively assessed by gait speed. Even if patients did not fully recover to the level of a healthy control person after THA, functional gain is comparable irrespective of BMI.

Can obesity and physical activity predict outcomes of elective knee or hip surgery due to osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify whether obesity or the regular practice of physical activity are predictors of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A systematic search was performed on the Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science electronic databases. Longitudinal cohort studies were included in the review. To be included, studies needed to have assessed the association between obesity or physical activity participation measured at baseline and clinical outcomes (ie, pain, disability and adverse events) following hip or knee arthroplasty.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, quality of life, obesity, physical activity and any postsurgical complications.

RESULTS

62 full papers were included in this systematic review. From these, 31 were included in the meta-analyses. Our meta-analysis showed that compared to obese participants, non-obese participants report less pain at both short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.19; P<0.001) and long term post-surgery (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.24; P<0.001), as well as less disability at long term post-surgery (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.36 to -0.28; P<0.001). They also report fewer postsurgical complications at short term (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.91; P<0.001) and long term (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) along with less postsurgical infections after hip arthroplasty (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.59; P<0.001), and knee arthroplasty (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Presurgical obesity is associated with worse clinical outcomes of hip or knee arthroplasty in terms of pain, disability and complications in patients with osteoarthritis. No impact of physical activity participation has been observed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016032711.

Can a target zone safer than Lewinnek's safe zone be defined to prevent instability of total hip arthroplasties? Case-control study of 56 dislocated THA and 93 matched controls

BACKGROUND

Various factors contribute to instability of total hip arthroplasty (THA), with implant orientation being a major contributor. We performed a case-control study with computed tomography (CT) data to determine whether: 1) orientation contributes to THA instability and 2) a safer target zone for stability than Lewinnek's classic safe zone can be defined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included prospectively 363 cases of THA dislocation that occurred during the calendar 2013 year in 24 participating hospitals. Of the 128 dislocations that occurred in patients who underwent THA at these centers, 56 (24 anterior, 32 posterior) had CT scans, thus were included in the analysis. The control group was matched 4:1 based on implant type, year of implantation, age, sex, bearing types and THA indication. Of the 428 matched control THA cases, 93 had CT scans. In all, the CT scans from 149 cases (56 unstable, 93 stable) were analyzed to determine the acetabular cup's inclination and anteversion, and the femoral stem's anteversion.

RESULTS

In the unstable THA group, cup inclination was 46.9°±7.4°, cup anteversion was 20.4°±10.8° and stem anteversion was 14.2°±9.9°. In the stable THA group, cup inclination was 44.9°±5.3° (P=0.057), cup anteversion was 22.1°±5.1° (P=0.009) and stem anteversion was 13.4°±4.4° (P=0.362). The optimal total anteversion (cup+stem) of 40-60° was achieved in 16.5% of unstable THA cases and 13.9% of stable THA cases, thus this parameter does not predict stability (odds ratio [OR] of 0.40, P=0.144). The cup was positioned in Lewinnek's safe zone in 44.6% of patients in the unstable group and 68.2% of those in the stable group (OR 3.74, P=0.003). A target zone defined as 40-50° inclination and 15-30° anteversion was better able to distinguish between unstable cases (23.2%) and stable cases (71.6%) resulting in an OR of 13.91 (P<0.001).

DISCUSSION

Implant positioning was the only risk factor for instability found in this study. Moreover, our findings reinforce the theory put forward by other authors that Lewinnek's safe zone is not specific enough to differentiate between stable and unstable THA implantations. The target zone for acetabular cups proposed here (40-50° inclination and 15°-30° anteversion) is related to a lower risk of instability. This orientation can be used as a guide, but must be combined with other technical elements to optimize stability. By balancing stability and biomechanics, the 40-50° inclination and 15°-30° anteversion target zone redefines the optimal positioning window.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III case-control study.

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility implants are subject to a specific implant-related complication, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), in which the polyethylene liner dissociates from the femoral head. For older generation designs, IPD was attributable to late polyethylene wear and subsequent failure of the head capture mechanism. However, early IPDs have been reportedly affecting contemporary designs.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and August 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "intraprosthetic dislocation," "dual mobility," "dual-mobility," "tripolar," "double mobility," "double-mobility," "hip," "cup," "socket," and "dislocation."

RESULTS

In all, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen were case reports and 2 were retrospective case series. These included a total of 19 total hip arthroplasties, which were divided into 2 groups: studies dealing with early IPD after attempted closed reduction and those dealing with early IPD with no history of previous attempted closed reduction. Early IPD was reported in 15 patients after a mean follow-up of 3.2 months (2.9 SD) in the first group and in 4 patients after a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (9.9 SD) in the second group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current data, most cases have been preceded by an attempted closed reduction in the setting of outer, large articulation dislocation, perhaps indicating an iatrogenic etiology for early IPD. Recognition of this possible failure mode is essential to its prevention and treatment.

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review was to report the rate of dislocation following the use of dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase (Scopus) was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and March 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "dual mobility", "dual-mobility", "tripolar", "double-mobility", "double mobility", "hip", "cup", "socket". The following data were extracted by two investigators independently: demographics, whether the operation was a primary or revision THA, length of follow-up, the design of the components, diameter of the femoral head, and type of fixation of the acetabular component.

RESULTS

In all, 59 articles met our inclusion criteria. These included a total of 17 908 THAs which were divided into two groups: studies dealing with DM components in primary THA and those dealing with these components in revision THA. The mean rate of dislocation was 0.9% in the primary THA group, and 3.0% in the revision THA group. The mean rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.7% in primary and 1.3% in revision THAs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current data, the use of DM acetabular components are effective in minimising the risk of instability after both primary and revision THA. This benefit must be balanced against continuing concerns about the additional modularity, and the new mode of failure of intraprosthetic dislocation. Longer term studies are needed to assess the function of these newer materials compared with previous generations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):18-24.

The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Instability following total hip arthroplasty remains a common and disabling complication. The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. An increasing number of studies have been undertaken to better understand DMC long term outcomes and complications. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify its different uses and outcomes according to the indications.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed using the keywords 'dual mobility' and 'tripolar cup' with no limit regarding the year of publication. One hundred seventy six publications were identified.

RESULTS

Current literature shows that "contemporary" dual mobility cup are a significant indication to manage instability following primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Survivorship at midterm is comparable to other articulations for primary THA, but is more difficult to evaluate in revision. Intra-prosthetic dislocation, wear, and loosening are now uncommon with new generations of DMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous generations of DMC, the current "contemporary" DMC presents a significant improvement. Current literature reveals a tendency to increase the indications but further studies with long term follow up remain important to consolidate these findings.

Dual-mobility implants prevent hip dislocation following hip revision in obese patients

PURPOSE

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with increased rates of dislocation in obese patients. It is not known whether dual-mobility implants decrease dislocation in these patients with obesity.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed two groups of revision THAs to compare the dislocation rate between 32 obese patients (BMI >30 kg/m²) with standard cups, and 35 obese patients (BMI >30 kg/m²) with dual-mobility cups. All patients received the same implants except for diameter head (32-mm head with standard cups and 28-mm head with dual mobility) and had the same cemented stem that was not changed at revision. The patients were followed at routine intervals and were specifically queried about dislocation. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, causes of revision and follow-up since the primary arthroplasty.

RESULTS

With standard liners, more hips in obese patients dislocated than did hips in obese patients who received dual-mobility implants. The number of dislocations in standard hips was at one year follow-up 15.6 % (5 of 32) compared with 0 % in dual-mobility hips and was at five year follow-up 21.8 % (7 of 32) compared with 2.8 % (1 of 35). After a mean follow-up of seven years no cases of loosening were found. Five patients in the obese group with a standard liner underwent re-revision surgery, the additional re-operations being necessary to treat recurrent postoperative dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients should be counselled about the important risk of dislocation that occurs with standard liners after revision THA. Dual-mobility liners in these patients with hip revision is an efficient technique to prevent post-operative hip dislocation.

Dual-mobility or Constrained Liners Are More Effective Than Preoperative Bariatric Surgery in Prevention of THA Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, in patients with obesity, it is not known whether the risk is only in the early postoperative period or whether it persists several years after surgery, and whether having bariatric surgery before undergoing THA and/or receiving a specific device (such as a dual-mobility or constrained acetabular liner) is more effective in terms of decreasing the risk of dislocation.

QUESTION/PURPOSES

(1) What is the cumulative risk of dislocation in patients with obesity after THA in the absence of a dual-mobility or constrained liner, and is this related to component positioning? (2) Does bariatric surgery before undergoing THA decrease dislocation risk in patients with obesity? (3) Are dual-mobility and constrained liners efficient in preventing dislocation in patients with obesity?

METHODS

At our university-based practice, all surgeons adhered to the following treatment approaches: Before 2000 no dual-mobility implants or constrained liners were used for primary THAs. Between 2000 and 2008, all patients whose body mass index (BMI) was greater than 30 kg/m(2) received dual-mobility liners (or constrained liners), except when they had previously had bariatric surgery. After 2008, all patients with BMIs over 30 kg/m(2) as well as those patients who were previously treated with bariatric surgery (regardless of BMI at the time of the index THA) received dual-mobility or constrained liners. This case-control study compared the dislocation percentage between 215 hips in nonobese patients (BMI ≤ 30 kg/m(2)), 215 hips in patients with obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) who received standard cups, 85 hips in patients with bariatric surgery before THA using standard cups (with reduction to a BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), and 155 hips in patients with obesity who received dual-mobility (when younger than 70 years) or constrained liners (when older than 70 years). All patients received the same implants except for different femoral head diameters (32-mm head with standard cups and 28-mm head with dual-mobility or constrained liners). The patients were followed at routine intervals and were specifically queried about dislocation. All the 670 hips had a minimum followup of 5 years with a mean followup of 14 years (range 5-25 years). At the most recent followup, 101 (15%) hips were lost to followup (respectively, 36 of 215, 34 of 215, five of 85, 24 of 155), which is the same ratio as observed among the underlying populations from which the patients were drawn.

RESULTS

With standard liners, more hips in patients with BMI > 30 kg/m(2) dislocated than did hips in nonobese (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) patients. The cumulative number of dislocations (first time without recurrent dislocation) was 6% (13 of 215) at 1-year followup in obese patients compared with 2% (four of 215) in nonobese patients (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-10.58; p = 0.03) and was 13% (28 of 215) at 15 years followup compared with 4% (eight of 215) in nonobese patients (OR, 3.9; 95% CI 1.72-8.71; p = 0.001). When bariatric surgery was performed before THA, BMI declined from 42 kg/m(2) to 28 kg/m(2), but with the same standard liners, more hips after bariatric surgery dislocated at 1-year followup than did hips in patients with obesity without preoperative bariatric surgery (13% [11 of 85] compared with 6% [13 of 215]; OR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.18-1.01; p = 0.05). Dual-mobility or constrained implants decreased the risk of dislocation, and fewer hips in patients with obesity with dual-mobility or constrained liners at 7 years followup had dislocated than did hips with standard liners (2% [three of 155] compared with 9% [20 of 215]; OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.66; p = 0.01) bringing this number in line with the number observed in nonobese subjects with standard cups.

CONCLUSIONS

With standard liners, the risk of dislocation is increased in patients with obesity. Preoperative decrease of BMI (with bariatric surgery) in patients with obesity did not prevent the risk of dislocation with standard liners. Use of dual-mobility or constrained liners in these patients is an effective technique to reduce the risk of postoperative hip dislocation. However, we do not yet know the full risks of loosening of dual-mobility and constrained liners in this obese population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Hip Arthroplasty in Obese Patients: Rising Prevalence-Standard Procedures?

We examined our experience and, in particular, complications associated with total hip arthroplasty in obese and morbidly obese patients. We prospectively gathered 50 patients in a matched control series including 25 obese and morbidly obese patients. All patients were operated using the direct lateral approach and standard postoperative protocols. Operating room time, complications, dislocations, blood loss, cup position and clinical parameters using the Harris Hip Score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index results were compared. Although there were some significant differences in clinical outcomes, standard procedures yielded good overall results and an acceptable rate of complications. Details approaching this patient entity are being discussed.

Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The rate of patients lost to follow-up may contribute to bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed orthopaedic RCTs from 2008 to 2011, including 559 RCTs with 131,836 enrolled subjects. The loss to follow-up rates and minimum follow-up times were recorded for each trial. Orthopaedic subspecialty, country of origin, number of enrolled patients, patient age, follow-up strategy, and funding type were also recorded.

RESULTS

Loss to follow-up was not reported in 111 of these studies (20 %). Mean loss to follow-up was 10.4 %. No orthopaedic subspecialty demonstrated significantly different follow-up rates. Remote follow-up strategies did not reduce the loss to follow-up rate. Studies with a minimum follow-up length of three years showed significantly higher loss to follow-up rates compared with studies with shorter minimum follow-up time (14.8 % versus 9.8 %, p = 0.01). Studies performed in the United States had a significantly higher rate of loss to follow-up compared with non-United States studies (13.8 % versus 9.4 %; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Loss to follow-up rates in published orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is overall relatively low. A substantial portion of publications does not adequately report follow-up data. Studies performed in the United States and studies with longer follow-up periods seem to be at higher risk for loss to follow-up.