Outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty using the modular dual mobility acetabular system to treat recurrent dislocation

Dual-mobility implants in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common and successful operation. However, dislocation remains a significant cause of implant failure in fixed-bearing designs. This study investigated the effect of dual-mobility implants (DM) compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants on all-cause revisions, revisions due to dislocation, post-operative complications and functional scores in patients undergoing primary and revision THA.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including studies that compared DM with FB implants in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023403736). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from the time of database inception to March 12, 2023. Eligible studies underwent meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a random-effects maximum-likelihood, where appropriate.

Results

Eight comparative, non-randomised studies involving 2810 DM implants and 3188 FB implants were included. In primary THA, there was an imprecise estimate of the difference in all-cause revision (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.25-2.72) and a significant benefit for the DM cohort in revision due to dislocation (OR 0.08, 95 % CI 0.02-0.28). In revision THA, the DM cohort showed benefit in all-cause revision (OR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.31-1.05) and revision due to dislocation (OR 0.14, 95 % CI 0.04-0.53). DM implants were associated with a lower incidence of implant dislocation and infection. The analysis of functional outcomes was limited due to reporting limitations. No intraprosthetic dislocations were observed.

Conclusion

The results suggest that contemporary DM designs may be advantageous in reducing the risk of all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, and post-operative complication incidence at mid-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term risk profile of this design, especially in the revision context.

Dual-mobility bearings reduce instability but may not be the only answer in revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

Aims

There is little information in the literature about the use of dual-mobility (DM) bearings in preventing re-dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to compare the use of DM bearings, standard bearings, and constrained liners in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation.

Methods

We reviewed 86 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation between August 2012 and July 2019. A total of 38 revisions (44.2%) involved a DM bearing, while 39 (45.3%) and nine (10.5%) involved a standard bearing and a constrained liner, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation, and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for the positioning of the acetabular component, the restoration of the centre of rotation, leg length, and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by Cox regression analysis. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHSs) were recorded. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (43 to 88); 54 were female (62.8%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years (2.0 to 8.75).

Results

DM bearings were used significantly more frequently in elderly patients (p = 0.003) and in hips with abductor deficiency (p < 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 13.2% for DM bearings compared with 17.9% for standard bearings, and 22.2% for constrained liners (p = 0.432). Re-revision-free survival for DM bearings was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.91) compared with 74% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) for standard articulations, and 67% (95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) for constrained liners (p = 0.361). Younger age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99); p = 0.031), lower comorbidity (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.95); p = 0.037), smaller heads (HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.99); p = 0.046), and retention of the acetabular component (HR 8.26 (95% CI 1.37 to 49.96); p = 0.022) were significantly associated with re-dislocation. All DM bearings which re-dislocated were in patients with abductor muscle deficiency (HR 48.34 (95% CI 0.03 to 7,737.98); p = 0.303). The radiological analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between restoration of the geometry of the hip and re-dislocation. The mean mHHSs significantly improved from 43 points (0 to 88) to 67 points (20 to 91; p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, with no differences between the types of bearing.

Conclusion

We found that the use of DM bearings reduced the rates of re-dislocation and re-revision in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, but did not guarantee stability. Abductor deficiency is an important predictor of persistent instability.

Is Modular Dual Mobility Superior to Standard Bearings for Reducing Dislocation Risk after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Retrospective Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) has been proven to reduce dislocation risk after total hip arthroplasty (THA). In the last decade modular DM (modDM) constructs have been introduced to allow the use of DM articulation with standard cementless acetabular shells. However, clinical evidence of modDM effectiveness is still low in primary THA and concerns about implant-related complications are increasing. This retrospective comparative multicenter study is aimed to investigate if the dislocation rate after primary THA could be reduced with modDM in comparison to standard bearing (SB).

METHODS

262 THAs were performed between 2017 and 2019, using SB (129 hips) or modDM (133) with the same cementless highly porous modular acetabular cup. Dislocations, complications and revisions were recorded and implant survival was analyzed.

RESULTS

At 2.5-year mean follow-up, dislocation occurred in 4 hips (3.1%) within the SB group while intraprosthetic dislocation in 2 hips (1.5%) within the modDM group (p = 0.44). Implant survivals with revision due to dislocation were 95.2% and 95.9% at 4-year follow-up for SB and modDM, respectively (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

modDM used in primary THA might reduce dislocation rate in comparison to SB, even in high-risk patients, however, caution is advocated due to specific intraprosthetic dislocation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Tapered and Fluted Modular Stem: A Mean Follow-Up of 16 Years

BACKGROUND

Tapered modular stems are increasingly used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with deficient femoral bone stock. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes of revision THA using a tapered and fluted modular stem.

METHODS

Between December 1998 and February 2006, 113 revision THAs (110 patients) were performed with a tapered and fluted modular stem at a single institution. Hip radiographs were used to identify stem subsidence, stability, and femoral radiolucency. Final outcomes were assessed in 72 hips (70 patients), with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 16 years (range, 10-23). At the final evaluation, the Harris Hip Score improved from a mean of 41 points (range, 10-72) preoperatively to 83 points (range, 56-100) (P < .001). Six femoral re-revisions were performed for the following reasons: 1 aseptic loosening, 2 stem fractures, and 3 infections. One stem fracture occurred at the modular junction after 14 years, and the other at a more distal location after 15 years. Stem subsidence was >5 mm in 6 hips (9.1%), but secondary stability was achieved in all stems. Osseointegration was observed in 63 (95.5%) hips. Stem survivorship was 91.1% with an end point of any re-revision and 94.6% for aseptic re-revision.

CONCLUSION

A tapered and fluted modular stem demonstrated excellent implant survivorship with reliable bony fixation at a mean follow-up of 16 years. This type of stem can be a durable option for revision THA in patients who have femoral defects.