Low Frequency of Early Complications With Dual-mobility Acetabular Cups in Cementless Primary THA

Dual Mobility Articulation in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mixed Femoral and Acetabular Components are a Feasible Option

BACKGROUND

The utilization of a different manufacturer for the prosthetic femoral head and the polyethylene insert in dual mobility (DM) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be necessary, especially in the revision setting. However, there is no data in the literature about this application. This study evaluated the outcomes of mixed manufacturer components, with the hypothesis that there would be no difference in measured outcomes compared to matched components.

METHODS

The DM articulations implanted during THA revision were retrospectively reviewed from 2011 to 2017. The study group was then stratified into 2 cohorts: matching components or mixed components. Of 130 hips included in the study with DM articulations with average follow-up of 7 years, 103 had mixed and 27 had matching manufacturer components. Rates of all cause reoperation and revision, intraprosthetic dislocation, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were compared using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test; survival analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Matched and mixed manufacturer implants had no significant difference between all cause reoperation (33 versus 25.2%), dislocation (14.8 versus 7.7%), and aseptic loosening (3.7 versus 3.9%), respectively. Higher rates of intraprosthetic dislocation (11 versus 0.97%) were observed in the matching component cohort. Survival analysis showed similar outcomes at 2, 5, and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed-component DM articulations show similar results compared to matching components. The off-label use of mixed manufacture DM articulation in THA is a feasible and safe option in the correct patient. Furthermore, when encountering a well-fixed femoral stem or acetabular shell, the use of a mixed component DM articulations may reduce the morbidity for the patient and prevent revision of all components.

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.

Is Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup a Reliable Option in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Background: Instability is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify the different uses and outcomes according to the indications of the cemented DMC (C-DMC). Methods: A systematic review was performed using the keywords "Cemented Dual Mobility Cup" or "Cemented Tripolar Cup" without a publication year limit. Of the 465 studies identified, only 56 were eligible for the study. Results: The overall number of C-DMC was 3452 in 3426 patients. The mean follow-up was 45.9 months (range 12-98.4). In most of the cases (74.5%) C-DMC was used in a revision setting. In 57.5% DMC was cemented directly into the bone, in 39.6% into an acetabular reinforcement and in 3.2% into a pre-existing cup. The overall dislocation rate was 2.9%. The most frequent postoperative complications were periprosthetic infections (2%); aseptic loosening (1.1%) and mechanical failure (0.5%). The overall revision rate was 4.4%. The average survival rate of C-DMC at the last follow-up was 93.5%. Conclusions: C-DMC represents an effective treatment option to limit the risk of dislocations and complications for both primary and revision surgery. C-DMC has good clinical outcomes and a low complication rate.

The Saturne cementless dual-mobility cup grants satisfactory long-term survival

Purpose

To report long-term survival and clinical outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a Saturne cementless dual-mobility (DM) cup, and investigate whether patient demographics or surgical parameters affect clinical scores.

Methods

A consecutive series of primary THAs implanted with Saturne cementless DM cups between 01/09/2009–31/12/ 2011 was retrospectively assessed. Patients were postoperatively evaluated using modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and forgotten joint score (FJS). Complications, reoperations, and revisions were noted. Regression analyses were performed to determine associations of postoperative mHHS with preoperative and intraoperative variables. Ten-year Kaplan–Meier survival was calculated.

Results

Of 308 patients (308 hips), 111 (36%) had died with their original cups in place, 29 (9%) were lost-to-follow-up, and 5 (2%) required cup revision, leaving a final cohort of 163 (53%) with their original cup in place at a follow-up of ≥ 10 years. Ten-year survival was 98% considering cup revision for any reason as endpoint; 99% considering cup revision for aseptic loosening as endpoint; 96% considering stem revision for any reason as endpoint; and 96% considering any revision as endpoint. The final cohort of 163 patients was assessed at 11 ± 1 years (range, 10–13), mHHS was 85 ± 16 (range, 31–100) and FJS was 84 ± 24 (range, 0–100). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that postoperative mHHS significantly worsened with age (β = -0.48, p = 0.007) and BMI (β = -0.70, p = 0.008), as well as for 22 mm head sizes (β = -6.98, p = 0.046).

Conclusions

The Saturne DM cup granted satisfactory survival and clinical outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 10 years, and resulted in no cases of intra- or extra-prosthetic dislocations.

Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is a frequently used procedure with high success rates, but 7% to 27% of the patients complain of persistent postsurgical pain 1 to 4 years post-operation. HA complications depend on the post-operative delay, the type of material used, the patient’s characteristics, and the surgical approach. Radiographs are still the first imaging modality used for routine follow-up, in asymptomatic and painful cases. CT and MRI used to suffer from metallic artifacts but are nowadays central in HA complications diagnosis, both having their advantages and drawbacks. Additionally, there is no consensus on the optimal imaging workup for HA complication diagnosis, which may have an impact on patient management. After a brief reminder about the different types of prostheses, this article reviews their normal and pathologic appearance, according to each imaging modality, keeping in mind that few abnormalities might be present, not anyone requiring treatment, depending on the clinical scenario. A diagnostic imaging workup is also discussed, to aid the therapist in his imaging studies prescription and the radiologist in their practical aspects.

The Incidence and Temporal Trends of Dislocation After the Use of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Implants in Primary Total Hip Replacements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Dislocation after a primary total hip replacement (pTHR) remains a common cause of treatment failure. Constrained acetabular components (CACs) and dual mobility implants (DMIs) may mitigate this in patients at high risk of dislocation or with significant intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with CACs and DMIs in pTHR.

METHODS

Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of CACs or DMIs in pTHR were sought from Medline and Embase to September 2020. Secondary outcomes included revision surgery for dislocation and for all causes.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (3 CAC and 43 DMI) comprising 582 CACs and 18,748 DMIs were included. The pooled incidence of dislocation was 1.08% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-3.72; range 0.27%-2.60%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 4.1 years for CACs, compared with 0.25% (95% CI: 0.08-0.46; range 0.00%-4.72%) over 6.2 years for DMIs. For DMIs, there was a temporal decline in dislocations from the 1980s onward, and dislocation rates remained low (<1%) until 15 years postoperatively. There were insufficient data for similar analysis of CACs. All studies were at high risk of bias. The incidence of revision for dislocation after CACs was 0.3% vs 0.1% for DMIs, and the incidence of revision for all causes after CACs was 4.8% vs 2.7% for DMIs.

CONCLUSION

DMIs demonstrated a lower incidence of dislocation compared with CACs; however, there was a relative absence of CACs used in the context of pTHR in the literature. Temporal trends in dislocation have improved over time for DMIs.

Acetabular Component and Liner Selection for the Prevention of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

»

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis; however, dislocation remains the most common cause of revision arthroplasty.

»

Technological advancements in acetabular component design and liner options, in conjunction with a more comprehensive understanding of the spinopelvic factors that influence dislocation, will likely reduce the risk of dislocation and revision over time.

»

The contemporary liner and shell options for primary THA, in order of increasing constraint and stability, include (1) neutral, (2) lateralized, (3) face-changing (oblique), (4) lipped (high-wall) with or without lateralization, (5) modular and anatomic dual-mobility, and (6) constrained options.

»

Different liner designs can alter functional anteversion, inclination, and jump distance, and can be used to minimize a single predictable dislocation vector (lipped [high-wall] liners) or multiple vectors of instability risk when the dislocation direction is unpredictable (dual-mobility liners).

»

Liner selection should be based on the patient-specific risk of dislocation, including static anatomic (e.g., large anterior inferior iliac spine or greater trochanter morphology), dynamic anatomic (e.g., limited sitting-standing change in the sacral slope), and demographic or medical (e.g., neurocognitive disorders and obesity) risk factors.

Notching of the Neck After Acetabular Constraint Necessitating Femoral Component Revision

A 75-year-old woman who had previously undergone a left revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of a constrained acetabular liner presented with recurrent dislocation of the hip. Intraoperatively, there was metallic staining of the hip capsule and significant notching of the femoral neck, consistent with impingement of the intact locking ring, necessitating stem revision. Constrained acetabular liners have high failure rates due to intraprosthetic impingement, but to our knowledge, failure due to notching of the femoral component and metallosis from repeated impingement has not been described. Surgeons should be aware of this potential mode of failure.

Femoral Neck Notching in Dual Mobility Implants: Is This a Reason for Concern?

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) implants have been advocated for patients at risk for impingement due to abnormal spinopelvic mobility. Impingement against cobalt-chromium acetabular bearings, however, can result in notching of titanium femoral stems. This study investigated the incidence of femoral stem notching associated with DM implants and sought to identify risk factors.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study reviewed 256 modular and 32 monoblock DM components with minimum 1-year clinical and radiographic follow-up, including 112 revisions, 4 conversion THAs, and 172 primary THAs. Radiographs were inspected for evidence of femoral notching and to calculate acetabular inclination and anteversion. Revisions and dislocations were recorded.

RESULTS

Ten cases of femoral notching were discovered (3.5%), all associated with modular cylindrospheric cobalt-chromium DM implants (P = .049). Notches were first observed radiographically at mean 1.3 years after surgery (range 0.5-2.7 years). Notch location was anterior (20%), superior (60%), or posterior (20%) on the prosthetic femoral neck. Notch depth ranged from 1.7% to 20% of the prosthetic neck diameter. Eight cases with notching had lumbar pathology that can affect spinopelvic mobility. None of these notches resulted in stem fracture, at mean 2.7-year follow-up (range 1-7.6 years). There were no dislocations or revisions in patients with notching.

CONCLUSION

Femoral notching was identified in 3.5% of DM cases, slightly surpassing the dislocation rate in a cohort selected for risk of impingement and instability. Although these cases of notching have not resulted in catastrophic failures thus far, further study of clinical sequelae is warranted. Component position, spinopelvic mobility, and implant design may influence risk.

Clinical Concerns With Dual Mobility- Should I Avoid it When Possible?

The utilization of dual mobility (DM) articulations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. The principal appeal of DM implants is its ability to reduce postoperative instability by maximizing the effective ball head size for each reconstruction. However, while DM implants have been used worldwide for over 3 decades, the experience in North America is more limited. Moreover, there remains concerns with intraprosthetic dissociation, wear, metallosis, and soft tissue impingement. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review the available evidence for these potential issues. First, intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a unique complication of DM implants. Although the rate has decreased with improvements in materials and design, the reported prevalence is approximately 1%. Second, wear in DM implants can be unpredictable and increased wear has been reported in younger, active patients. Third, corrosion in modular DM implants has been described and elevations in serum cobalt and chromium levels have been reported. While the clinical significance of these elevations is unclear, it remains a source of concern with these implants. Finally, psoas impingement and entrapment can be a source of persistent groin pain after THA. DM articulations are a valuable addition to the armamentarium of total hip surgeons. However, these bearings are not free of complications. Consequently, current data only support selective use of DM bearings in patients at increased risk for postoperative instability after arthroplasty.

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 and Conventional Bearings Have Comparably Low Dislocation Rates for Anterior-Based Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in select patients, especially those undergoing revision surgery. The use of DM bearings has not been studied as extensively for use in primary THA. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following primary THA with anterior-based approaches between patients receiving DM bearings vs standard bearing hip implants.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary THA through an anterior-based approach. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between the standard and DM bearing patients to control for possible risk factors for instability. Functional outcomes, dislocations, and aseptic revisions were identified for each patient. The effect of DM on postoperative outcomes was determined using univariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 250 DM bearings were compared to 753 standard bearings. We found no difference in dislocation rate between single bearings and DM bearings (0.53% vs 0.4%). There was 1 DM dislocation occurring in a liner with outer diameter of 38 mm. There were no DM dislocations with outer diameter >38 mm. Aseptic revision surgery was more common in DM. This difference was driven by higher incidence of femoral periprosthetic fracture. There were no differences in functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Dislocation rates are comparably low between DM bearings and standard bearings for THA done using an anterior approach to the hip. Further investigation is needed to determine if specific patient populations may benefit from DM implants for primary THA when an anterior approach to the hip is being used.

What Is the Dislocation and Revision Rate of Dual-mobility Cups Used in Complex Revision THAs?

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility cups have been shown to reduce the dislocation risk after THA. Although dual-mobility cups can be a useful strategy to mitigate against recurrent dislocation after revision surgery, few clinical studies have focused on the results of complex revision THAs with extensive bone and soft-tissue loss or in patients who have undergone more than one previous surgical procedure.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the survival free from revision for dislocation of dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THAs? (2) What is the survival free from any dislocation?

METHODS

Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, 327 patients underwent a complex revision THA that included an acetabular revision, defined as preexisting massive bone loss in the acetabulum (at least Paprosky Type 2B) and/or proximal femur (at least Paprosky Type 3), substantial gluteal soft-tissue involvement, at least two previous surgical procedures or a one-stage septic revision, or history of dislocation. All 327 complex revision patients received a dual-mobility cup. Of those, 34% (111) were lost to follow-up before 5 years and were not known to have reached a study endpoint (revision for dislocation, and any dislocation) before then, leaving 216 patients for analysis. For patients with bilateral hip surgeries only the first operated hip was included for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 69 months (60 to 110). The primary endpoint was dislocation or re-revision for dislocation. Fifty-six percent (120 of 216) of the patients were women and 44% (96 of 216) were men. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 9 years. The patients underwent a median of four surgical procedures (1 to 4) before the index procedure (the revision evaluated in this study). A survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; any dislocation or revision for dislocation was determined as the endpoint.

RESULTS

The dislocation-free survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval 92 to 98) at 5 years and 82% (95% CI 72 to 89) at 9 years. The overall dislocation rate was 11% (24 of 216 patients) at the final follow-up interval. Survival free of revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) at 5 years and 85% (95% CI 75 to 92) at 9 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THA in this series had a higher rate of dislocation and revision than expected, based on earlier studies of dislocations of these components. Although we believe dual-mobility cups are still the first choice of implant if the patient has instability, these cups should be used cautiously if severe bone loss or soft-tissue involvement is present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Impingement Resulting in Femoral Notching and Elevated Metal-Ion Levels After Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty

A 60-year-old woman underwent revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular dual-mobility articulation for recurrent dislocation. At 1-year follow-up, the patient reported no dislocations but had occasional clicking and discomfort with extreme motion. A Dunn radiograph identified notching of the femoral stem, attributed to impingement. Metal ions were elevated without adverse local-tissue reaction. After 4.5 years of observation, the notch size remained stable. She denied pain. Neither stem fracture nor prosthetic dislocation occurred. Impingement against cobalt-chromium acetabular bearing surfaces can result in notching of titanium femoral components after total hip arthroplasty. Increased anteversion intended to protect against posterior dislocation may be a risk factor. Posterior notching is best visualized on Dunn views, so incidence may be underestimated. No associated femoral implant fractures were identified on literature review.

Absence of instabilities and intra-prosthetic dislocations at 7 to 11 years following THA using a fourth-generation cementless dual mobility acetabular cup

PURPOSE

Dual-mobility (DM) cups are increasingly used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) but there lacks literature on their long-term results. We aimed to investigate outcomes of a fourth-generation cementless DM acetabular cup at 7-11 years.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 240 consecutive hips that received cementless THA using the same dual mobility cup (Novae Sunfit TH) and femoral stem (Corail). Patients were recalled at ≥7 years to collect Oxford hip scores (OHS), Harris hip scores (HHS), and inspect for radiolucent lines and granulomas. Multi-variable analyses were performed to determine whether HHS or OHS were associated with pre- or intra-operative variables.

RESULTS

At 8.4 ± 0.8 years (range, 7-11), 6 hips were revised (2.5%), 54 deceased (22.5%), and 14 could not be reached (5.8%). Four revisions (2 cup+stem, 2 liners only) were due to sepsis (1.7%), one (cup and stem) for trauma (0.4%), and one (stem) due to aseptic loosening (0.4%). For the remaining 166 hips, HHS was 83.6 ± 13.2 and OHS was 20.3 ± 6.7. Multi-variable analysis confirmed that HHS (β = - 0.38; p = 0.039) and OHS (β = 0.36; p < 0.001) worsened with age, and that OHS was worse for Charnley C patients (β = 3.17; p = 0.009). Neither granulomas nor radiolucenies were observed around any cups, but radiolucenies were seen around 25 stems (20.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This fourth-generation DM cup demonstrated satisfactory outcomes at 7-11 years, with no instabilities or cup revisions due to aseptic loosening. Better OHS was observed for younger patients and those presenting higher Charnley grade.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case study.

Dual mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty. The experiense of the university hospital

Objective  To evaluate the incidence of prosthetic instability in a consecutive series of 42 cases of total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility cup.

Methods  A retrospective study of 38 patients undergoing primary or revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the acetabular dual-mobility cup (DMC) implant between January 2012 and January 2018. The rates of complications and instability after surgery were evaluated.

Results  In total, 42 arthroplasties were performed in 38 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 16 months. The mean age of the sample was 60 years. In 38 cases, we used a cementless DMC, and, in the other 4 cases, a cemented DMC. There were no cases of early or late instability.

Conclusion  The series herein presented proves the good result of the DMC in cases of primary arthroplasty, complex and complicated cases of failed osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures, and revision for THA instability. The absence of episodes of prosthetic instability and complications in complex cases of primary and revision THA increases the confidence in this concept.

Lack of early dislocation for dual mobility vs. fixed bearing total hip arthroplasty: A multi-center analysis of comparable cohorts

Background

Dislocation is a major cause of morbidity and revision surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address such issues, dual mobility (DM) bearings were introduced as a more stable alternative to fixed-bearing (FB) prostheses. As such, we compared DM and FB systems in a cohort study in terms of dislocations, readmissions, and revisions.

Methods

A 27 multi-center retrospective review was performed of 664 DM and 218 FB cases from the same manufacturer with mean follow-up of 2.09 years and 1.83 years, respectively. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) including Harris Hip Score (HHS), SF12, EQ5D, and Lower Extremity Activity Score (LEAS) were evaluated as well as dislocation rates, readmissions, and revisions rates. We also performed a survivorship analysis through Kaplan-Meier estimator. Students t-test was used for normally distributed continuous data and Fisher exact test (P < 0.05) was used for discrete data.

Results

There were 0 dislocations in the DM (0%) group and 2 dislocations in the FB (0.92%) group (p = 0.06). Latest follow up HHS revealed a significant difference between groups (91.44 DM and 87.81 FB; p = 0.006). In addition, there was significant difference between DM and FB on SF12 Physical Component Score (PCS) (46.83 and 44.55, respectively, p = 0.015). Also, readmission rates at 30, 60 and 90 days remained lower for DM than for FB at each time point (1.05% vs. 2.75%, 1.81% vs. 2.75%, and 1.81% vs. 2.75, respectively). Overall, DM had a lower revision rate at 1.51% compared to 2.29% for FB (p = 0.24). The revision breakdown for DM revealed 0 (0%) for both Anatomic Dual Mobility (ADM) and Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) due to the acetabular component.) There was a difference, 14 (87.5%) for ADM and 2 (12.5%) due to the femoral component. The survivorship analysis revealed no significance difference between DM and FB at 4 years (97.90% and 97.26%, respectively).

Conclusion

In comparison to patients who undergo FB THA, DM bearings have improved PROMs and a lower rate of dislocation, readmission, and revision.

Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study

Background

Dual mobility (DM) has been used in primary total hip arthroplasty recently for their low dislocation rates, low revision rates, and improved patient functional outcomes. We compared 2 DM systems, anatomic dual mobility (ADM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) and modular dual mobility (MDM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ), to determine differences in dislocation rates, revision rates, and patient outcome scores.

Methods

The study was a single-center matched retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty surgery with an ADM or MDM system by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2017. Demographics, operative details, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve to compare survival time between groups was collected as well.

Results

Five hundred seventy-four patients were included in the study with 287 patients matched in each group with mean 2.86 years of follow-up. The dislocation rate in each cohort was 0%, the acetabular-specific revision rate was 0%, and in each cohort, overall revision rate in each cohort was 1.7%. In general, patient-reported outcomes were similar for each group (Harris Hip Score Pain (P = .919), Harris Hip Score Function (P = .736), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (P = .139), Pain Visual Analog Scale (P = .146), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (P = .99), University of California, Los Angeles (P = .417), and Harris Hip Score Total (P = .136). There was a slight clinically insignificant increase in hip flexion between the cohorts favoring the ADM group (98.6 ± 9.8 vs 94.0 ± 9.7, P < .001).

Conclusions

Both DM systems had similar patient-reported outcomes that were quite favorable. At 2.86 years of follow-up, neither the ADM nor MDM systems demonstrated dislocation, and both had low acetabular-specific and overall revision rates in this matched cohort study.

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.

Can some early revision total hip arthroplasties be avoided?

Aims

Studying the indications for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may enable surgeons to change their practice during the initial procedure, thereby reducing the need for revision surgery. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potentially avoidable indications for revision THA within five years of the initial procedure.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review of 117 patients (73 women, 44 men; mean age 61.5 years (27 to 88)) who met the inclusion criteria was conducted. Three adult reconstruction surgeons independently reviewed the radiographs and medical records, and they classified the revision THAs into two categories: potentially avoidable and unavoidable. Baseline demographics, perioperative details, and quality outcomes up to the last follow-up were recorded.

Results

A total of 60 revision THAs (51.3%) were deemed potentially avoidable and 57 (48.7%) were deemed unavoidable. The following were identified as avoidable factors: suboptimal positioning of the acetabular component (29; 48%), intraoperative fracture or a fracture missed on an intraoperative radiograph (20; 33%), early (less than two weeks) aseptic loosening (seven; 11.7%), and symptomatic leg length discrepancy of > 1 cm (four; 6.7%).

Conclusion

A surprisingly large proportion of acute revision THAs are potentially avoidable. Surgeons must carefully evaluate the indications for revision THAs in their practice and identify new methods to address these issues. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):97–103.

Total Hip Arthroplasty for Posttraumatic Conditions

Posttraumatic arthritis accounts for a notable share of secondary osteoarthritis about the hip joint. Compared with total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis, total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic arthritis offers greater technical challenges because of bone deformities and retained implants. Careful preoperative evaluation is necessary to prepare the approach, hardware removal strategy, and implants necessary to address bone deficiencies. Although arthroplasty is a highly successful procedure for posttraumatic arthritis, the results are less favorable than surgery for primary osteoarthritis. It is associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, including periprosthetic fractures, infection, instability, and decreased survivorship.

Dual mobility cups in primary total hip arthroplasties: trend over time in use, patient characteristics, and mid-term revision in 3,038 cases in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (2007-2016)

Background and purpose - We noticed an increased use of dual mobility cups (DMC) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) despite limited knowledge of implant longevity. Therefore, we determined the trend over time and mid-term cup revision rates of DMC compared with unipolar cups (UC) in primary THA. Patients and methods - All primary THA registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) during 2007-2016 were included (n = 215,953) and divided into 2 groups - DMC THA (n = 3,038) and UC THA (n = 212,915). Crude competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed with cup revision for any reason as primary endpoint. Adjustments were made for sex, age, diagnosis at primary THA, previous operation, ASA score, type of fixation, surgical approach, and femoral head size. Results - The proportion of primary DMC THA increased from 0.8% (n = 184) in 2010 to 2.6% (n = 740) in 2016. Patients who underwent DMC THA more often had a previous operation on the affected hip, a higher ASA score, and the diagnosis acute fracture or late posttraumatic status compared with the UC THA group. Overall 5-year cup revision rate was 1.5% (95% CI 1.0-2.3) for DMC and 1.4% (CI 1.3-1.4) for UC THA. Stratified analyses for patient characteristics showed no differences in cup revision rates between the 2 groups. Multivariable regression analyses showed no statistically significantly increased risk for revision for DMC THA (HR 0.9 [0.6-1.2]). Interpretation - The use of primary DMC THA increased with differences in patient characteristics. The 5-year cup revision rates for DMC THA and UC THA were comparable.

Mid-Term Outcomes of Dual Mobility Acetabular Cups for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated (1) survivorship, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) complications, and (4) radiographic outcomes of dual mobility (DM) systems when compared to fixed-bearing prostheses in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A cohort of 85 patients who underwent revision THA using DM implants were compared to a prior matching cohort of 170 patients who received fixed-bearing implants. Mean follow-up time was 4 years in the DM cohort and 10 years in the fixed-bearing cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survivorships. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Complications and radiographs were evaluated and reported at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall aseptic and all-cause survivorships of the DM cohort were 96.5% and 95.3% compared to 94.7% and 93.5% in fixed-bearing cohort (P = .01 for aseptic and all-cause survivorships). The DM cohort had statistically significant higher survivorship when compared at equivalent follow-up interval in the fixed-bearing cohort. There were 3 aseptic (one due to dislocation) and 1 septic revision in the DM cohort compared to 9 aseptic (6 due to dislocation) and 2 septic revisions in the fixed-bearing cohort. Postoperative HHS scores were 88 and 86 points in the DM and fixed-bearing cohorts. However, the difference in mean improvement in HHS scores from preoperative to postoperative (ΔHHS) was not statistically significant (35 vs 34, P = .533). Except for the aforementioned revisions, there were no progressive radiolucencies or osteolysis on radiographic evaluation in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

DM articulations demonstrated superior survivorship at equal follow-up intervals when compared to fixed-bearing implants and showed a trend toward lower dislocation rates.

Is dual mobility associated with an increased risk of revision for infection? Matched cohort of 231 cases of dual-mobility cups and 231 fixed cups

INTRODUCTION

We used a matched cohort of 231 cases of revision of primary dual-mobility cups (DMC) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 231 cases of fixed cups (FC) THA, to determine whether (i) revision for infection was more frequent when using DMC-THA than FC-THA; (ii) Causes for revision were significantly different.

METHODS

The French Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology carried out a prospective multicentre study from 2010 to 2011. The inclusion criterion was an exhaustive collection of 1^st revision THA (at least 1 component revised, re-revision excluded). 2,044 1^st revision cases were prospectively collected; 251 (13.5%) were revision of DMC-THA and 1,793 were revision of FC-THA (87.7%). We defined a matching process (1:1) between the 2 cohorts. 231 DMC-THAs were eligible for comparison with 231 FC-THAs.

RESULTS

47 (20.3%) FC-THAs were revised for infection and 54 (23.3%) DMC-THAs. There was no statistical difference (p = 0.43). 41 (17.7%) FC-THAs were revised for dislocation, compared to 11 (4.7%) DMC-THAs (p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

The main finding of our study was that DMC was not associated with an increased risk of revision for infection compared to standard THA. THA revision for infection was not correlated to the type of cup used. It is mandatory to report on comparable types of patients when comparing outcomes. For similar patient profiles (i) DMC-THAs were not revised more often for infection than FC-THA (ii) FC-THAs were revised 4 times more for dislocation than DMC-THA.

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.

Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013

BACKGROUND

Despite the excellent outcomes associated with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), implant failure and revision continues to burden the healthcare system. THA failure has evolved and displays variability throughout the literature. In order to understand how THAs are failing and how to reduce this burden, it is essential to assess modes of implant failure on a large scale. Thus, we report: (1) etiologies for revision THA; (2) frequencies of revision THA procedures; (3) patient demographics, payor type, and US Census region of revision THA patients; and (4) the length of stay and total costs based on the type of revision THA procedure.

METHODS

We queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all revision THA procedures performed between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. This yielded 258,461 revision THAs. Patients specific demographics were identified in order to determine the prevalence of revision procedure performed.

RESULTS

Dislocation was the main indication for revision THA (17.3%), followed by mechanical loosening (16.8%). All-component revision was the most common procedure performed (41.8%). Patients were most commonly white (77.4%), aged 75 years and older (31.6%), and resided in the South US Census region (37.0%). The average length of stay for all procedures was 5.29 days. The mean total charge for revision THA procedures was $77,851.24.

CONCLUSION

Dislocation and mechanical loosening is the predominant indication for revision THA in the United States. With the frequency of revision THAs projected to double in the next decade, orthopedists must take steps to mitigate this potentially devastating complication.

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.

Low friction arthroplasty and dual mobility cup: a new gold standard

INTRODUCTION

Low friction arthroplasty (LFA) introduced by Sir John Charnley was the gold standard for many years. Dislocation and infection are the first causes for early revision. Late failures are polyethylene (PE) wear and loosening. Due to dislocation risk we slowly switched to the use of LFA with dual mobility cups (DMC). The purposes of this study are (1) to assess whether our changes have improved outcomes and (2) what is the new gold standard?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We selected from an observational registry of 1,091 cases of hybrid Charnley total hip arthroplasty (THA). The acetabular component was either DMC in 455 cases or fixed cup (FC) in 636 cases.

RESULTS

Three dislocations (0.6%) occurred in the DMC group (none revised). In the FC group 54 dislocated (8.49%) and 20 were recurrent and underwent revision (revision rate 3.14%). In the DMC group, five acetabular and three femoral revisions were performed (revision rate for loosening 1.7%). In the FC group 19 cases underwent acetabular revision, and five cases had femoral component revised (revision rate for loosening 3.7%).

DISCUSSION

Charnley's LFA has proven over 50 years of excellent survivorship. To decrease dislocation risk, one suggested increasing femoral head diameter. Gilles Bousquet proposed another way, namely, the DMC concept. Dislocation is no longer a critical issue with DMC as demonstrated in our series and main series. DMC in primary THA is still a subject of debate. Mid-term results do not demonstrate a higher rate of wear than LFA. What is the current gold standard? LFA was and is our current gold standard in association with a DMC.