Dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty

Liner orientation change of dual mobility cup determined via 3D ultrasound imaging and motion analysis: A cadaver study

BACKGROUND

A mobile polyethylene liner enables the dual mobility cup (DMC) to contribute to restoring hip joint range-of-motion, decreasing wear and increasing implant stability. However, more data is required on how liner orientation changes with hip joint movement. As a first step towards better understanding liner orientation change in vivo, this cadaver study focuses on quantifying DMC liner orientation change after different hip passive movements, using ultrasound imaging and motion analysis.

HYPOTHESIS

The liner does not always go back to its initial orientation and its final orientation depends mainly on hip movement amplitude.

METHODS

3D ultrasound imaging and motion analysis were used to define liner and hip movements for four fresh post-mortem human subjects with six implanted DMC. Abduction and anteversion angles of the liner plane relative to the pelvis were measured before and after hip flexion, internal rotation, external rotation, abduction, adduction.

RESULTS

Liner orientation changes were generally defined by angle variation smaller than 5°, with the liner nearly going back to its initial orientation. However, hip flexion caused liner abduction and anteversion angle variations greater than 15°. Except for hip adduction, only weak or no correlation was found between the final angle of the liner and the maximal hip joint movement amplitude.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first attempt to quantify liner orientation change for implanted DMC via ultrasound imaging and constitutes a step forward in the understanding of liner orientation change and its relationship with hip joint movement. The hypothesis that the final liner abduction and anteversion angles depend mainly on hip movement amplitude was not confirmed, even if hip flexion was the movement generating the most liner orientation changes over 15°. This approach should be extended to in vivo clinical investigations, as measured liner angle variation could provide important support for the wear and stability claims made for DMC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; cadaveric study.

The Frank Stinchfield Award: Assembly and Dissociation Forces Differ Between Commonly Used Dual Mobility Implants: A Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a complication unique to dual mobility (DM) implants where the outer polyethylene head dissociates from the inner femoral head. Increasing reports of IPD at the time of closed reduction of large head DM dislocations prompted this biomechanical study evaluating the assembly and dissociation forces of DM heads.

METHODS

We tested 17 polyethylene DM heads from 5 vendors. Of the heads, 12 were highly cross-linked polyethylene (4 vendors) and 5 were infused with vitamin E (2 vendors). Heads were between 46 and 47 mm in diameter, accepting a 28 mm-inner ceramic head. Implants were assembled and disassembled using a servohydraulic machine that recorded the forces and torques applied during testing. Dissociation was tested via both axial pull-out and lever-out techniques, where lever-out simulated stem-on-acetabular component impingement.

RESULTS

The initial maximum assembly force was significantly different between all vendors (P < .01) and decreased for all implants with subsequent assembly. Vendor 4-E (Link with vitamin E) heads required the highest assembly force (1,831.9 ± 81.95 N), followed by Vendor 3 (Smith & Nephew), Vendor 5 (DePuy Synthes), Vendor 1-E (Zimmer Biomet with vitamin E), Vendor 2 (Stryker), and Vendor 1 (Zimmer Biomet Arcom). Vendor 4-E implants showed the greatest dissociation resistance in both pull-out (2,059.89 N, n = 1) and lever-out (38.95 ± 2.79 Nm) tests. Vendor 1-E implants with vitamin E required higher assembly force, dissociation force, and energy than Vendor 1 heads without vitamin E.

CONCLUSIONS

There were notable differences in DM assembly and dissociation forces between implants. Diminishing force was required for assembly with each additional trial across vendors. Vendor 4-E DM heads required the highest assembly and dissociation forces. Vitamin E appeared to increase the assembly and dissociation forces. Based on these results, DM polyethylene heads should not be reimplanted after dissociation, and there may be a role for establishing a minimum dissociation energy standard to minimize IPD risk.

Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of modern dual-mobility intraprosthetic dissociations

Aims

Dual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD.

Methods

A total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management.

Results

The incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation.

Conclusion

The overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure.

Dual-mobility tripod cup for revision hip arthroplasty: long-term (five to fourteen years) evaluation of a new generation cementless implant

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the survivorships of a new generation cementless DMC with tripod additional fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty and complications at a minimum five year follow-up.

METHODS

One hundred and fifteen revisions (THA) treated with tripod DMC performed between 2009 and 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Acetabular defects were classified as Paprosky 1 (n = 38, 33%), 2 (n = 75, 65%) or 3 (n = 2, 2%). Unipolar or bipolar revision was performed for the following indications: aseptic acetabular loosening (63%), infection (14%), aseptic bipolar loosening (11%), instability (4%), aseptic femoral loosening (3%), ALVAL (3%) and iliopsoas impingement (2%). Mean follow-up was 9.4 years ± two (range, 5 to 14).

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, a single episode of dislocation occurred within three months after the procedure (0.8%) with no revision. Three cases of aseptic loosening were diagnosed (2.6%). Four infections (3.5%) required reoperation: three required a two stage bipolar revision; one was treated by DAIR procedure. At the latest follow-up, the survivorship of the acetabular cup for aseptic loosening was 98% [95% CI (91.2-99.4)] and for any reasons was 94.4% [95% CI (90.1%-98.9%)]; the mean HHS improved from 60 points (range, 18-94 points) to 83 points (range, 37-100 points) (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study reports a low complication rate in favour of the use of a tripod DMC in revision THA with a satisfactory survivorship at a ten year follow-up.

Use of dual mobility cup cemented into a tantalum acetabular shell for hip revision with large bone loss can decrease dislocation risk without increasing the risk of mechanical failure

BACKGROUND

Porous tantalum components and augments have demonstrated short to midterm fixation stability in acetabular total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision but do not offer a novel option to decrease the postoperative dislocation rate. Recently, dual mobility (DM) cups have gained interest to decrease the prevalence of recurrent hip instability after revision hip arthroplasty, but this issue was not confirmed combined with use of tantalum reconstruction devices. Therefore, we did a retrospective study aiming to: (1) evaluate at a 5-year minimum follow-up period the dislocation rate (and other intra- and postoperative complications), (2) assess radiographic results specifically looking at osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, (3) and also clinical results in a cohort of patients who underwent complex acetabular reconstruction with trabecular metal revision components associated with a cemented DM socket.

HYPOTHESIS

Using a DM socket cemented in porous tantalum components can reach the low risk of hip dislocation reported with DM components in revision setting without increasing the risk of a mechanical failure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study identified 174 THA revision including an acetabular revision. Were excluded 118 revisions with acetabular defects Type 1, 2a or 2B according to Paprosky's classification, as well as 18 hips revised without a dual mobility and 3 patients (3 hips) lost to follow-up. Were thus included in this study 35 hips (35 patients) implanted with uncemented total hip arthroplasty revision using both trabecular metal acetabular cup-cage reconstruction and a cemented DM cup. Seven hips were classified Paprosky types 2C, 15 type 3A and 13 types 3B. Patients were followed with clinical and radiological evaluation regarding dislocation rate, infection, reoperation or re-revision, osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, and functional results according to the Harris hip score and psoas impingement presence.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 8.1±1.8 years (5.1-12.6), one dislocation was recorded, and one acute deep infection. No patient required a cup re-revision for septic or aseptic loosening. The survivorship at 8years regarding revision for any cause as an endpoint was 96.5% (CI95%: 92-99). Osseointegration of TM implants was analyzed and found no acetabular migration at the last follow-up in the cohort. The mean hip center position was optimized from 48±7mm (37-58) to 34±5mm (29-39) vertically and from 26±5mm (-18-36) to 24±8mm (7-31) horizontally without reaching significance (p=0.1). On the last follow-up X-rays, the mean acetabular inclination was 47̊±9̊ (32̊-61̊). According to the criteria of Hirakawa, 97.1% (34/35) of the hip centers were restored. One cup (2.9%) was more than 5mm proximally from the hip center, and none more than 10mm. Clinical results assessed a Harris Hip Score improved from 36±17 (23-62) preoperatively to 82±15 (69-93) at last follow-up (p<0.0001). Two patients (2/35, 5.7%) complained of psoas impingement.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests effectiveness of DM cups in association with a tantalum-made acetabular shell for reconstruction of large bone defect in THRs for both solving postoperative instability and aseptic loosening without increasing the re-revision rate for any reason in a midterm follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; observational study.

Dislocated and Dissociated Dual-Mobility Components Are Easily Missed and More Than Half Fail Closed Reduction: Six Tips to Aid Management

Dual-mobility (DM) implants reduce the risk of dislocation in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM implants are at risk for large-head dislocation and intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), where the inner femoral head dissociates from the outer polyethylene head. This study aimed to report the incidence of DM dislocation and IPD, evaluate the rate of recognition of IPD before and after reduction, investigate the outcomes of these complications, and provide treatment recommendations for their management.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2021, 695 primary and 758 revision THAs were performed with DM constructs at a single institution. There were 44 large-head dislocations (3.0%) and 10 IPDs (0.7%). Four additional IPDs occurred during attempted closed reduction, increasing the IPD incidence to 0.96%. We reviewed prior instability history, dislocation management, success of reduction, recognition of IPD, and subsequent rates of revision and complications. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years.

Results

Nine of 10 IPDs were missed at presentation and thus not treated as such. Sixty-three percent of attempted closed reductions in the emergency department failed and led to 4 IPDs and 1 periprosthetic fracture. Reduction success was associated with the following factors: use of general anesthesia with paralysis (p = 0.02), having the reduction performed by an orthopaedist (p = 0.03), and undergoing only 1 reduction attempt (p = 0.015). Two-thirds of dislocations required revision. The rate of redislocation was 33%, and 5 hips required subsequent revision at a mean of 1.8 years after the initial dislocation.

Conclusions

We present an evaluation of DM-implant dislocation and dissociation along with management recommendations based on these data. Given the low success and high complication rates of attempted closed reduction and the need for eventual revision, we recommend that all patients with dislocated DM implants be brought to the operating room for closed reduction as well as potential revision if the reduction fails.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Analysis of an explanted dual mobility cup after 21 years, parabolic wear pattern: A case report

CASE

A dual mobility cup was implanted in 1983 in a 43-year woman. After 31 years of normal function, we analysed the explanted materials with modern techniques.

CONCLUSION

Volumetric wears of the small and large articulations of the dual-mobility construct were similar. For the first time, we demonstrated that the dual-mobility liner underwent parabolic (not linear) wear during the period of implantation.

Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty: Should It Be Revised Using Dual Mobility Implants? A Retrospective Analysis from the R.I.P.O. Registry

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33-96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48-92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants

BACKGROUND

The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA.

METHODS

Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants.

RESULTS

For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants.

CONCLUSION

Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

Major acetabular defects: outcomes of first revision total hip arthroplasty using Kerboull cross-plate with allograft and cemented dual mobility cup at a maximum follow-up of fourteen years

BACKGROUND

The use of dual mobility cups (DMC) has been shown to reduce hip instability after revision surgery. For severe acetabular bone loss, reconstruction with a Kerboull cross-plate and bone allograft would contribute to restoring native hip position and bone stock. Only two papers reported on the combination of Kerboull cross-plate with bone allograft and cemented DMC in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

This is a monocentric retrospective study (28 cases) of first-time revision THA using such a construct in American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) grade III and IV acetabular bone defect. Detailed demographic, clinical and radiographic results were recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of six ± 3.63 years, no case of instability was reported. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was 88.4 ± 10.1. No hook fracture or mechanical failure was observed. Non-progressive radiolucent lines were recorded. Osteointegration of the allografts was observed in all cases with a mean Grodet score of 7.9 ± 0.97.

CONCLUSIONS

In first revision THA, the use of a Kerboull cross-plate with allograft and a cemented DMC in AAOS grade III and IV acetabular bone defects demonstrated excellent clinical and radiological outcomes with no recorded cases of dislocation or mechanical failure.

Dual-mobility bearings in complex revision hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is associated with an increased dislocation risk. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been used to address this issue. Such constructs offer increased range of motion and enhanced stability whilst avoiding some issues associated with fully-constrained devices. DM bearings have been used in our unit since 2013.

METHODS

All rTHA cases since 2013 were reviewed using the following criteria: (1) use of a DM bearing; (2) extensive soft tissue or bone loss resulting from ARMD, infection or multiple revisions, or requiring custom or megaprosthetic reconstruction; (3) minimum 2-month follow-up.

RESULTS

52 cases were identified with a median of 2 previous operations (range 1-6) and mean follow-up of 14 (2-41) months. The Novae-Stick component was used in 50 cases, the Avantage in 2 and the Trident MDM in 1 case. 19 required acetabular reconstruction using trabecular metal and four required custom acetabular components. 19 required femoral reconstruction with a proximal or total femoral replacement.Postoperatively, 8 patients (15.4%) sustained a dislocation at a mean of 1.6 (range 1-3) months. 3 (5.8%) requiring re-revision. 1 required excision arthroplasty and 2 a constrained liner, 1 of which went on to have further instability. There were no intraprosthetic dislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-mobility components are a viable option in the complex rTHA setting. Early dislocations can occur but the rate of instability is acceptable in this high-risk group.

Midterm Outcomes After Reconstruction of Superolateral Acetabular Defects Using Flying Buttress Porous Tantalum Augments During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Porous tantalum augments are versatile tools in reconstructing complex acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study examines the clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration at two to 17-year follow-up in the largest cohort to-date in the literature.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive revision THAs involving the use of flying buttress augments between 2003 and 2018. The mean patient age and follow-up duration were 63.9 ± 11.6 years (range, 35-87) and 8 years (range, 2-17), respectively. The Oxford hip score was used to assess clinical outcome. The modified Moore classification was used to assess acetabular augment and shell osseointegration. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess implant survivorship.

RESULTS

The mean Oxford hip score improved from 15.9 ± 6.2 preoperatively to 35.0 ± 6.5 at a mean follow-up of eight years (P < .0001). Radiographic assessment using the modified Moore classification demonstrated five signs of osseointegration in 49 hips (83.1%), four signs in six hips (10.2%), three signs in one hip (1.7%), and one sign in one hip (1.7%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated ten-year survivorship of 88.9% (95% CI 74.4-95.4) with all-cause revision as end point and 94.3% (95% CI 83.1-98.2) with revision for acetabular aseptic loosening as end point.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of superolateral acetabular defects during revision THA using porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration provides excellent implant survivorship and favorable clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV.

Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aims of this meta-analysis were to: (1) validate the outcome of modern dual mobility (DM) designs in patients who had undergone primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures and (2) to identify factors that affect the outcome.

Methods

We searched for studies that assessed the outcome of modern DM-THA in primary and revision procedures that were conducted between January, 2000 to August, 2020 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews and Embase. The pooled incidence of the most common failure modes and patient reported outcomes were evaluated in patients who have received: (1) primary THA, (2) revision THA for all causes or (3) for recurrent dislocation. A meta-regression analysis was performed for each parameter to determine the association with the outcome. The study design of each study was assessed for potential bias and flaws by using the quality assessment tool for case series studies.

Results

A total of 119 studies (N= 30016 DM-THAs) were included for analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 47.3 months. The overall implant failure rate was 4.2% (primary: 2.3%, revision for all causes: 5.5%, recurrent dislocation: 6.0%). The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (primary: 0.9%, revision for all causes: 2.2%, recurrent dislocation: 2.4%), septic loosening (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes: 2.3%, recurrent dislocation: 2.5%), extra-articular dislocation (primary:0.6%, revision for all causes:1.3%, recurrent dislocation:2.5%), intra-prosthetic dislocation (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes:1.0%, recurrent dislocation:1.6%) and periprosthetic fracture (primary:0.9%, revision for all causes:0.9%, recurrent dislocation:1.3%). The multi-regression analysis identified younger age (β=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 – -0.02) and female patients (β=3.34, 95% CI 0.91–5.78) were correlated with higher implant failure rate. Age, gender, posterolateral approach and body mass index (BMI) were not risk factors for extra-articular or intra-prosthetic dislocation in this cohort. The overall Harris hip score and Merle d’Aubigné score were 84.87 and 16.36, respectively. Level of evidence of this meta-analysis was IV.

Conclusion

Modern dual-mobility designs provide satisfactory mid-term implant survival and clinical performance. Younger age and female patients might impact the outcome after DM-THA. Future research directions should focus on, (1) long-term outcome of modern dual-mobility design, including specific concerns such as intra-prosthetic dislocation and elevated metal ion, and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis of dual-mobility implant as an alternative to conventional THA for patients who are at high risk of dislocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.

Dual mobility for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis

INTRODUCTION

Revision THA (R-THA) is thought to have a higher complication rate if compared to primary THA. Dual Mobility (DM) implants have been designed aiming for achieving greater stability, with good clinical results. However, scarce material can be found about the real improvements provided by this type of implant compared to traditional implant in Revisions of Total Hip Arthroplasties.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies were performed in December 2019. This was in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our primary outcome measure was overall survivorship and dislocation rate, either treated with a conservative method or requiring surgery.

RESULTS

Regarding the overall implant survival, we found a slight significant risk ratio, with a statistically meaningful difference between the two groups in questions in favour of the DM implant. A statistically significant difference in favour of the DM group turned out considering only the Dislocation rate Risk ratio and the aseptic loosening risk as well. No statistical difference was found between the two groups about the risk ratio of infection.

DISCUSSION

A steady increase of evidence is demonstrating the efficacy of using a DM cup system in THA revisions with low dislocation rates, but currently there is no study in the literature that demonstrates with statistically significant evidence. The main finding of the present study is that implant's Survivor and prevention of dislocation at medium follow-up showed better results with a DM if compared to a fixed-bearing cup, for Revision THA.

Comparison of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Literature Review

Recurrent instability remains a common cause of failure after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups and designs with constrained acetabular liners (CAL) have both been developed to help overcome this challenge. The aim of this report is to compare safety and efficacy outcomes of both designs based on the literature. A comprehensive literature review including published evidence on the results of DM and CAL in revision THA was performed and summarized. Available literature focusing on overall survival, dislocation, loosening, intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD), and functional outcomes were analysed. Forty-six reports including an evaluation of 5,617 total hips were evaluated were included in the review. The included studies were divided into two distinct groups based on implantation approach: i) CAL (n=15) and ii) DM (n=31). The DM group had higher overall survival rates (94.7% vs. 81.0%), lower dislocation rates (2.6% vs. 11.0%), and lower acetabular loosening rates (1.0% vs. 2.0%) compared to the CAL group. IPDs were reported in 6 studies (mean rate, 0.6%). No differences in functional outcomes were identified due to incomplete reports. Our observations reveal that designs with CAL have poorer outcomes as compared to DM cups in revision THA. Currently, the use of DM seems more appropriate since they offer lower rates of dislocations, loosening and re-revisions in the short- and mid-term. Concerns regarding the potential of increased wear in a younger, high-demand population require additional data and evaluation by long-term studies for the DM design.

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; Serf, Décines-Charpieu, France) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years.

Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Efficient Strategy to Decrease Dislocation Risk

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a challenging surgery with a higher rate of complications than primary arthroplasty, particularly instability and aseptic loosening. The purpose of this study is to compare dual mobility cup (DMC) and standard mobility cup (SMC) in all rTHAs performed at our institution over a decade with a 1 year minimum follow-up.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-five rTHAs (acetabular only and bipolar revisions) between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. These were divided into those with a DMC (184 revisions) or SMC (111 revisions). Dislocation and complications requiring re-revision were reported.

RESULTS

The rTHA mean age was 69 years ± 13.9 (19-92) and the mean follow-up was 2.3 years. Dislocation risk was statistically lower (P = .01) with a DMC (3.8%; 7/184) than with an SMC (13.5%; 15/111). DMC required re-rTHA in 24/184 (13%) for any reason compared to SMC in 19/111 (17.1%) (P = .34). There was no significant difference in early aseptic loosening (P = .28) between the 2 groups. For young patients (≤55 years), results were similar with a lower dislocation rate in the DMC group (P = .24) and no increased risk of early aseptic loosening (P = .49).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that for all rTHA indications DMC compared to SMC has a significantly decreased risk of postoperative dislocation without risk of early aseptic loosening at medium term follow-up. The use of DMC in rTHA is an important consideration particularly with the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision THA globally.

Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.

METHODS

From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4-31.3), p = 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC_95%, 79.9-100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank, p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.

Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty with a dual-mobility cup. Matched case-control study (16 cases vs. 48 controls)

BACKGROUND

Reports of high dislocation rates after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) have encouraged the widespread use of dual-mobility cups. Dislocation has been less common but not fully abolished with dual-mobility cups, and its causes have remained unidentified. The objectives of this retrospective matched case-control study were: 1) to identify risk factors for dislocation, 2) and to assess dislocation outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

The causes of dislocation after revision THA with a dual-mobility cup can be identified.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Among 653 consecutive patients identified retrospectively as having undergone revision THA with a dual-mobility cup (Medial Cup, Aston, Saint-Étienne, France) between January 2007 and December 2017, 16 (2.45%) subsequently experienced dislocation, after a mean of 3.6 months (range, 0.9-19 months). For each of these 16 patients, we collected the main patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], ASA score, and reason for the initial arthroplasty procedure), local history (number of previous surgical procedures, reason for revision, femoral and acetabular bony defects classified according to Paprosky, and status of the abductor apparatus), and characteristics of the revision (approach, diameters of the cup and femoral head, cup inclination, femoral offset, lower limb length, and implant anteversion). Controls were patients without dislocation after revision dual-mobility THA. Each of the 16 patients was matched to 3 controls on age (±10 years), sex, year of revision, and whether revision was only acetabular or bipolar. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to compare the cases and controls, and dislocation outcomes in the cases were evaluated.

RESULTS

By univariate analyses, factors associated with dislocation were BMI>30 (cases, 37.5%; controls, 10.4%; p=0.02), larger number of previous surgical procedures on the same hip (cases, 2.8; controls, 1.8; p=0.004), larger number of arthroplasties (cases, 2.3; controls, 1.5; p=0.004), history of instability (cases, 31% with chronic dislocation and 13% with recurrent dislocation; controls, 6.25% and 2.1%, respectively; p=0.004), and compromised abductor apparatus (cases, 56.25%; controls, 14.6%; p=0.002). Independent risk factors for dislocation identified by multivariate analysis were instability (odds ratio [OR], 14.5; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.5-149.9) and, most importantly, abductor apparatus compromise (OR, 43.1; 95%CI, 3.18-586.3). Of the 16 cases, 1 was lost to follow-up, 1 had contra-indications to anaesthesia, 1 died after several dislocation episodes, and 1 died 3 months after surgical reduction. In 5 cases, there was a single dislocation episode. Further surgery was performed in 8 cases (surgical reduction, n=1; constrained cup, n=3; trochanteric internal fixation, n=1; exchange of the dual-mobility cup, n=2, including 1 with subsequent dislocation episodes; and femoral component exchange followed by a retentive cup due to further dislocation episodes, n=1).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for dislocation consisted of a history of instability and, most importantly, abductor apparatus compromise. A constrained cup should be considererd in patients with impaired abductor apparatus. No further dislocations occurred after reduction of the first episode in 31.25% of cases. Recurrent dislocation should prompt measures to correct impaired abductor apparatus whenever possible, as well as correction of any component malposition. Whether a retentive cup should be implanted routinely remains unclear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, matched case-control study.

Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty after failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures

INTRODUCTION

Performing total hip arthroplasty (THA) following failed internal fixation of proximal femur fractures is associated with an elevated risk of implant dislocation. We hypothesized that using a dual mobility (DM) cup will help to reduce the risk of postoperative instability in this specific context.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 33 consecutive patients who underwent DM THA following failed internal fixation of a proximal femur fracture. The clinical assessment consisted of the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné and HHS scores along with an analysis of preoperative and follow-up radiographs. The primary outcome was the occurrence of implant dislocation.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up (44±24 months), 7 patients had died and 0 were lost to follow-up. Only one dislocation had occurred (3%). The mean PMA and HSS scores of 14.8 and 80 respectively were significantly better than the preoperative scores. There were no cases of aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSION

The use of DM cups in the context of THA following failed internal fixation of proximal femur fractures helps to reduce the risk of dislocation. Thus DM cups are recommended in this indication with high risk of postoperative instability.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with a Kerboull plate: comparative outcomes using standard versus dual mobility cups

INTRODUCTION

Instability is a major complication in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups were shown to reduce the risk of post-operative implant dislocation. Few case-series studies assessed the outcomes of cemented DM cups when associated to acetabular reconstruction antiprotrusio cages. No published comparative studies were found to look for outcome differences between standard cups (SC) and DM cups in first revision THA associated with a Kerboull plate (KP) and acetabular bone grafting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study of two groups of patients in two institutions. All cases were first revision THA with KP reconstruction; a cemented standard cup (SC) was used in one institution (THA-SC group) while a cemented DM cup was used in the second institution (THA-DM group). The posterolateral approach and the same technique for KP placement, the cross technique, were performed in both groups. Primary outcomes were dislocation and revision rates. Survivorship and clinical and radiological results were set to be secondary outcomes. There were ten patients (13 hips) in the first group and 16 patients (16 hips) in the second with a mean follow-up clinical and radiological evaluation of 74.2 ± 47.9 months.

RESULTS

Besides age, no significant demographic differences were present between both groups. There were three dislocations (23%) in the first group treated with close reduction compared to none in the second (p = 0.04). No further episode of dislocation or revision surgery occurred until the last follow-up in both groups. The mean Harris Hip Scores for the THA-SC and THA-DM groups were 87.5 ± 10.9 and 87.4 ± 12.1, respectively. When present, radiolucent lines were less than 1 mm thick and were non-progressive in both groups. In all patients, complete trabeculation remodeling or cortical repair of the graft was observed.

CONCLUSION

The cup type was the single variable which could account for the observed dislocation rate difference. The mid-term results of using DM cups with KP in first revision THA seem very encouraging. Our findings add to the previously published results on the excellent outcomes in terms of stability in revision THA when using DM cups.

Cause of irreducible dislocation of a re-revision THR

Instability or recurrent dislocations are a common reason for revision of total hip replacements (THRs). Dual-mobility constructs can help improve stability by increasing the femoral head jump distance. These constructs are used to decrease the risk of re-revision in the setting of recurrent dislocation. This case describes an unusual case of irreducible dislocation of a re-revision THR due to intraprosthetic dislocation. The patient required open reduction and revision of this construct to a tripolar implant. This is important to appreciate from an emergency medicine point of view as repeated attempts at reduction will be fruitless and may result in a femur fracture. This particular type of dislocation is very rare. Perioperative considerations should include early referral to the orthopaedic team for reduction in theatre, and having a low threshold for open reduction. Revision options should be available when bringing a case like this to the operating theatre.

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty

Aims

Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra-articular dislocation.

Results

For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extra-articular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all-cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2).

Conclusion

Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High-quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:11–19.

Comparison of dual mobility cup and other surgical construts used for three hundred and sixty two first time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations: five year results from Lithuanian arthroplasty register

PURPOSE

Recently, there has been increasing interest in the use of dual mobility systems in the treatment of hip instability. The aim of this study was to investigate the re-revision rate of dual mobility cup compared to different surgical concepts when used for first-time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations.

METHODS

The data were derived from the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register. For survival analysis, we used both re-revision for all reasons and for dislocations as an end-point. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the influence of various covariates (age, gender, and implant concept).

RESULTS

A total of 1388 revisions were recorded from 2011 to 2015, of which 362 were performed due to recurrent dislocation. Of the revisions, 247 were performed using dual mobility cups, while 115 were performed using a variety of other surgical constructs including constrained acetabular cups, conventional cups, femoral head exchanges, stem exchanges or anti-luxation rings. There were 27 re-revisions of which 15 were for additional dislocations. There were only 2% re-revisions due to dislocation with dual mobility vs 9% when using other surgical constructs. Cox regression adjusting for age and gender showed that in the short-term, dual mobility cup had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation as well as for all reasons compared to the other surgical constructs.

CONCLUSION

In revision of total hip arthroplasties for dislocation, significantly lower short-term re-revision rate was observed for patients revised with dual mobility cup.

Risk of revision and dislocation in single, dual mobility and large femoral head total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Postoperative dislocation is a challenging complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) that affects patient outcome worldwide. Instability is one of the main complications with rates exceeding 20% in some series. Currently, alternative acetabular components are available with dual mobility (DMTHA) bearing surfaces and larger femoral head size that may reduce the risk of dislocation, yet provide the functional benefit of standard single mobility (STHA) bearing surface THA. However, whether STHA, big femoral head (BTHA) and DMTHA should be used is still controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of BTHA, STHA and DMTHA in primary or revision THA. These clinical outcomes consist of postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to June 8, 2017, that reported postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of either implant THA. Eleven of 677 studies (nine comparative studies and two RCTs) (N = 4084 patients) were eligible; all 11 studies were included in pooling. Intervention included dual mobility THA (N = 1068 patients), standard THA (N = 2568 patients), big head THA (N = 378 patients) and constrain THA (N = 70 patients). A network meta-analysis showed that risk of revision and dislocation of DMTHA was significantly lower with RR of 2.19 (1.36, 3.53) and 4.19 (2.04, 8.62) when compared to STHA. While there was no statistically significant risk of having revision and dislocation of DMTHA when compared to BTHA and CTHA. The SUCRA probability of DM and BTHA was in the first and second rank with 46.5 and 44.8% in the risk of revision and 46.7 and 45.1% in the risk of dislocations. In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), the best implant of choice that has lowest risk of revision and dislocation after THA is DMTHA follow by BTHA. We recommend using dual mobility and big head as an implant for safety in THA. However, there were only two studies that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to further evaluate which implants are the best for THA.

Salvage of a monoblock metal-on-metal cup using a dual mobility liner: a two-year MRI follow-up study

PURPOSE

Revision of failed modular metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-THA) can be technically difficult. A dual mobility liner can help to salvage a well-fixed acetabular component. The present paper reports the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision of failed Birmingham modular MoM-THA using a dual mobility liner.

METHODS

The present study reports on ten patients (3 female and 7 male) with 11 revision THAs. Patients underwent revision an average of 51 months (range 40-73 months) after index procedure. Mean follow-up after the revision was 31 months (range 24-37 months) and all patients underwent an MRI with metal artifact reduction software (MARS) at least two years after revision to assess for local polyethylene wear and osteolysis.

RESULTS

The Harris Hip score improved from 92.2 (range 63.0-100.0) to 100.0 (p = 0.072). One patient had a one-time dislocation within seven days of surgery. No patient required additional surgeries. Radiographs showed no signs of component loosening and osteolysis and MRI imaging revealed no evidence of polyethylene wear or osteolysis.

CONCLUSION

A dual mobility liner in an existing Birmingham cup can provide excellent clinical and radiological short-term results without MRI evidence of increased polyethylene wear. Post-operative hip precautions should be enforced.