Otto Aufranc Award: Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA Reduced Dislocation, Rerevision, and Reoperation Compared With Large Femoral Heads

Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular Fluted Tapered Stems

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components are frequently utilized in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, long-term follow-up has been limited. The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at long-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on implant survivorship, radiographic results, and complications in a large cohort of aseptic revision THAs using MFT stems.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 515 aseptic femoral revisions performed with 2 MFT stem designs in the total joint registry of a single tertiary care academic institution from 1999 to 2013. Serial radiographs were reviewed for subsidence of >5 mm. The mean follow-up (and standard deviation) was 10 ± 5 years (range, 2 to 21 years). A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized.

RESULTS

The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 12%. There were 57 revisions, 27 of which involved revision of the fluted tapered component (FTC). Dislocation (n = 19), periprosthetic joint infection (n = 15), and aseptic loosening of the FTC (n = 11) were the most common reasons for revision. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 16%. The 15-year cumulative incidences were 6% for any FTC revision and 2% for FTC revision for aseptic loosening. Stem subsidence of >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all but 1 stem was stable at the most recent follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This large series of MFT stems used in aseptic revision THAs had a 2% incidence of subsequent revision of the FTC for aseptic loosening at 15 years. Dislocation and infection were the most common reasons for any revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age: Results of >500 Cases

BACKGROUND

There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure.

METHODS

We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Modular fluted tapered stems in two-stage reimplantation of previously infected total hip arthroplasties

Aims

Uncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants - modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components - in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.

Methods

We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from September 2000 to September 2020. Two designs of MFT femoral components were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 7), and 46% (n = 109) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (SD 4). A competing risk model accounting for death was used.

Results

The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n = 25) and infection (n = 16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only two FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence ≥ 5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases. All stems were radiologically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Score was 69 (SD 20) at most recent follow-up.

Conclusion

This series demonstrated that MFT components were durable and reliable in the setting of two-stage reimplantation THA for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily due to dislocation and recurrent PJI.

Decreased Instability in High-Risk (Hip-Spine 2B) Patients After Modifications of Surgical Planning and Technique

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) who have spinal deformity and a stiff spine are the highest-risk group for instability. Despite the increasing use of dual-mobility cups and large femoral heads, dislocation remains a major complication after THA. Preoperative planning becomes a critical aspect of ensuring precise component positioning within a safe zone. The purpose of this study was to investigate dislocation rates over a 9-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 4,731 THAs performed by 3 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2014 and March 2023 was performed. Spinopelvic measurements were conducted to determine the hip-spine classification group for each patient. Only patients classified as 2B (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis > 10° and Δsacral slope < 10°) were eligible. Both absolute and relative dislocation frequencies were then analyzed using time-series analysis techniques and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 281 hip-spine 2B patients undergoing primary THA were eligible for analysis (57% women; mean age, range: 66 years, 23 to 87; mean body mass index, range: 28, 16 to 45). The overall dislocation rate was 4.3%. Use of femoral head sizes ≥ 40 mm increased from 4% in 2014 to 2019 to 37% in 2020 to 2023 (P < .001), while the use of dual-mobility cups decreased from 100% in 2014 to 2019 to 37% in 2020 to 2023 (P < .001). Acetabular component planning was changed from the supine plane to the standing plane in February 2020. Those changes in surgical practice were notably correlated with a significant decrease in dislocation rates from 6.8% in 2014 to 2019 to 1.5% in 2020 to 2023 (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the introduction of advanced preoperative THA planning to the standing plane, coupled with precise intraoperative technology for implant placement, can significantly reduce the risk of instability in high-risk THA patients. Notably, we observed a significant decrease in dislocation rates, which aligned with the shift in surgical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Cemented dual-mobility constructs in uncemented revision acetabular components

Aims

Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.

Methods

We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97).

Results

There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case.

Conclusion

While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface.

Contemporary Isolated Bearing Exchange for the Management of Hip Instability Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Isolated ball and liner exchanges (IBLEs) can be performed to increase hip joint stability, but historical results have been mixed due to a lack of head size options or dual mobility articulations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contemporary results of IBLEs in patients who have instability following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 65 primary THAs from 2016 to 2020 with hip instability undergoing IBLE or conversion to dual mobility articulation. There were 31 men and 34 women who had an average age of 70 years (range, 26 to 92). The mean time to revision from primary was 40.1 months (range, 1 to 120). In 52 cases, IBLE was performed using conventional bearings, while 13 hips were converted to dual mobility. Radiographic factors, including acetabular component orientation, reproduction of hip joint offset, leg lengths, and outcomes such as recurrent instability requiring subsequent revision and patient-reported outcome measure, were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

There were 12 (18.4%) hips that experienced subsequent instability and required another revision (17.3% ball and liner exchange versus 23.1% dual mobility articulation, P = .615). The mean time to rerevision for instability was 17.1 months. There were no significant differences in either acetabular component anteversion (P = .25) or restoration of hip joint offset (P = .87) in patients who required another revision for instability compared to those who did not, respectively. At 1 year, patients undergoing conventional bearing exchange reported higher Hip Dysfunction Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacements (P = .002) and Veterans Rand physical component (P = .023) scores compared to those who underwent a conversion to dual mobility articulation. Only age > 75 years at the time of surgery was associated with increased risk for dislocation (odds ratio 7.2, confidence interval 1.2 to 43.7, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated bearing exchanges for instability following THA remained at high risk for subsequent instability. Conversion to dual mobility articulations did not reduce the risk of reoperation.

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.

The Surgical Approach Impacts Component Selection in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study of 7,460 Hips

BACKGROUND

A higher risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported for the posterior approach (PA) compared to the anterior approach (AA). Dual mobility implants, larger head sizes, and elevated or face-changing liners can reduce the risk for dislocation. It remains unclear whether the component selection is influenced by the surgical approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 7,048 patients who underwent 7,460 primary THA with either AA or PA for primary hip osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis of the femoral head between 2019 and 2021. A propensity score model based on age, body mass index, height, and American Association of Anesthesiologists Score was applied. There were 2,502 AA-THA matched with 4,958 PA-THA (2,456 1:2, and 46 1:1). Groups were compared with multiple linear regression analyses/multivariate logistic regressions after controlling for American Association of Anesthesiologists Score and body mass index. In a second step, only hips operated by surgeons using both approaches were matched 1:1 (1,204 PA and AA, respectively). The same statistics were performed after controlling for "surgeon".

RESULTS

The PA was associated with a more frequent use of dual mobility implants, elevated liners, face-changing liners, as well as heads with 36 mm or larger diameters, and the implanted cups were significantly larger (P < .001, respectively). These findings were consistent for both matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach impacts the component selection in THA. Patients undergoing PA-THA are more likely to receive implants with larger head size or stabilizing features compared to AA-THA.

Outcomes of Dual Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Replacements

Background Dual mobility bearings have gained attention in the prevention of instability in revision total hip replacement. This study aimed to evaluate the use of dual mobility bearings in revision total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included the rate of re-operation for any reason, surgical complications, serious medical adverse events, and 90-day mortality rate. Methods A single-centre case series of 55 consecutive operations in 49 patients who underwent revision total hip replacement using dual mobility bearings with a minimum follow-up of three months was studied.  Results Early dislocation occurred in one case (2%), and there were no intra-prosthetic dislocations at a mean follow-up of 16 months. The rate of re-operation for any reason was 6/55 (11%) cases, and the post-operative infection rate was 2/55 (4%) cases. Serious medical adverse events occurred in 2/55 (4%) cases. The 90-day mortality rate was 1/55 (2%) cases. Two cases (2%) had cup abduction or anteversion angles outside of the safe zones although there were no dislocations in these patients. Conclusion This case series demonstrates a low dislocation rate in the early post-operative period for dual mobility bearings in revision total hip replacement. Dual mobility bearings show promise as an early low dislocation implant in revision total hip replacement. It remains to be determined whether dual mobility bearings are low-wear implants in the long term.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Dislocation after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison between Dual Mobility and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty

Purpose

The objective of this study was to analyze the results from a cohort of patients who underwent a revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a dual mobility cup (DMC) implant.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective review of revised THAs was conducted using the database from a single tertiary referral hospital. A total of 91 revision THAs from 91 patients were included in the study. There were 46 male hips and 45 female hips. The mean age was 56.3±14.6 years, and the mean follow-up period was 6.4±5.9 years. In performance of revision THAs, the DMC implants were used in 18 hips (19.8%), and the conventional implants were used in 73 hips (80.2%).

Results

During the follow-up period, three dislocations were identified, and the overall dislocation rate was 3.3%. Early dislocation (at one month postoperatively) occurred in one patient, while late dislocation (at a mean of 7.5 years) occurred in two patients. There was no occurrence of dislocation in the DMC group (0%), and three dislocations were detected in the conventional group (4.1%). However, no significant difference in the rate of dislocation was observed between the two groups (P=0.891).

Conclusion

Although the rate of dislocation was higher in the conventional group, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups due to the small number of patients. Nevertheless, we believe that the dual mobility design is advantageous in terms of reducing dislocation rate and can be recommended as an option for a revision THA.

Removing Cemented Dual Mobility Liners From Acetabular Components: A Technical Tip for a Challenging Surgical Problem

Dislocation remains the leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty. Dual mobility (DM) constructs, including monoblock cups designed for cementation, reduce but do not eliminate this risk. Cemented DM constructs offer several unique advantages in revision total hip arthroplasty, and as such, they have gained popularity. Despite their advantages, a portion of these implants will require revision for infection or recurrent dislocation. Removal of a cemented DM cup presents numerous challenges, and there is no effective published technique. Here, we present an effective technique for the safe removal of one design of cemented DM cup.

Cementing a Monoblock Dual-Mobility Implant into a Fully Porous Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty to Address Hip Instability: Surgical Technique

Background

The use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility implant into a fully porous cup is indicated for patients with acetabular bone loss who have a high risk of postoperative hip instability. Patients undergoing lumbar fusion for sagittal spinal deformities have an increased risk of hip dislocation (7.1%) and should be assessed on sitting and standing radiographs1. Gabor et al. conducted a multicenter, retrospective study assessing the use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility bearing in a porous acetabular shell in patients with acetabular bone loss and a high risk of hip instability2. Of the 38 patients, 1 (2.6%) experienced a postoperative dislocation that was subsequently treated with closed reduction without further dislocation. This surgical technique represents a favorable surgical option for patients with acetabular bone loss who are at risk for hip instability. In the example case described in the present video article, the patients had a history of dislocations, lumbar fusion, and evidence of Paprosky 3B acetabular defect; as such, the decision was made to revise to a porous shell and cement a monoblock dual-mobility implant.

Description

With use of the surgeon's preferred approach, the soft tissue is dissected and the hip is aspirated. The hip is dislocated and a subgluteal pocket is made with use of electrocautery to mobilize the trunnion of the femoral stem to aid in acetabular exposure. The femoral component is assessed to ensure appropriate positioning with adequate anteversion. The acetabular component and any acetabular screws are removed. A "ream to fit" technique is performed in the acetabulum until bleeding bone is encountered, with minimal reaming performed in healthy bone from the posterior column. A trial prosthesis is placed within the acetabulum to evaluate if there is satisfactory fixation and if any augment is necessary. Care must be taken during reaming to ensure that enough bone is reamed to accommodate a porous shell that can fit the monoblock dual-mobility implant with a 2-mm cement mantle. Smaller porous shells measuring 56 mm are available for smaller defects but are often not utilized in cases of substantial acetabular bone loss. Fresh-frozen cancellous allograft is utilized to fill any contained defects. The revision porous shell with circumferential screw holes is utilized to allow for screw fixation posterosuperior and anterior toward the pubis. The implants are dried prior to placement of the cement. The cement is applied to the shell and the monoblock dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage. Antibiotic-loaded cement can be utilized according to surgeon preference. Excess cement is removed under direct visualization while the cement is drying, and the position of the dual-mobility implant is adjusted in approximately 20° anteversion and 40° inclination. Stability is assessed after the cement cures, and intraoperative radiography can be performed to confirm cup positioning prior to closure. Any remaining capsule is closed, followed by closure of the remaining soft tissue in a layered fashion.

Alternatives

A fully porous multi-hole jumbo cup with conventional polyethylene liner and femoral head can be utilized to increase the jump distance of the femoral head. Constrained, lipped, or offset polyethylene liners can be utilized if the shell is well fixed and a dual-mobility implant cannot be inserted. A cemented dual-mobility implant can be utilized in a well-fixed acetabular shell without evidence of loosening or osteolysis.

Rationale

Dual-mobility implants have become increasingly utilized because of their advantages: (1) ability to decrease dislocation rate without increasing constraint and (2) increasing range of motion with reduced impingement risk2-8. These implants are particularly useful in the setting of revision cases with large acetabular bone defects. In a study of 76 patients with dual-mobility implants cemented into porous acetabular shells, Muthusamy et al. found that only 3.3% of patients experienced postoperative dislocations9. Moreover, acetabular cup survival was excellent, with 100% survival at 1 year and 96.2% at 2 years.

Expected Outcomes

The use of a dual-mobility implant is a viable treatment option in cases of revision total hip arthroplasty, particularly those in which postoperative stability is a concern; monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells are particularly useful in this setting2-8. These trends are similarly seen in patients treated with monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells. Muthusamy et al. evaluated the use of this construct to treat instability or risk of hip dislocation in 76 hips, reporting a dislocation rate of 3.3% at 2 years. Additionally, the authors reported rates of all-cause acetabular survival from re-revision of 96.7% at 6 months, 93.3% at 1 year, and 89.7% at 2 years9. Physicians should be aware of the possibility for intra-prosthetic dislocations, as although this complication is rare, it has been reported in the literature7,10.

Important Tips

In order to allow for circumferential coverage for fixation and ingrowth potential in cases with acetabular defects, the shell is typically impacted slightly vertical (45° to 50° of inclination) and in neutral version (0° to 5° of anteversion). Positioning can be adjusted to improve osseous contact and ingrowth as determined by the size and shape of the defect.The use of a drill guide for the locking screws allows limited degrees of variable screw angulation. In the revision setting, longer screws may be placed posterosuperior toward the sciatic notch or anteroinferior into the pubis. Surgeons should be aware of the anatomy and should predrill holes to reduce the risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures such as the obturator artery anteriorly.Any screw holes that are not filled should be covered with plastic hole covers in order to prevent cement from migrating behind the cup. Implants should be dried prior to the placement of the cement, and the cement should be applied to the shell and the dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage.Utilize a monoblock dual-mobility implant that is designed for cementation in order to avoid implant dissociation from the acetabular shell.Remove all fibrous tissue that may hinder bony integration.Assess for pelvis discontinuity; pelvis discontinuity and acetabular bone loss are risk factors in the setting of any revision and should be properly assessed preoperatively and intraoperatively and managed accordingly.Avoid over-reaming and damage of the posterior column.Utilize a reamer or trial to assess defect size and need for augments.Place a compression screw where the cup is in contact with the bone in order to avoid tilting.Cover unused screw holes.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

THA = total hip arthroplastyS/P = status postTKA = total knee arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyKM = Kaplan MeierDMC = dual-mobility cupPE = polyethylene.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture: epidemiology, outcomes, and factors associated with success

The aging population and the increasing number of patients with primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) has equated to an increased incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the hip. These injuries are a significant source of patient morbidity and mortality, placing a financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. As the volume of PPF is expected to along with the growing volume of primary and revision THA, it is important to understand the outcomes and factors associated with treatment success. The choice of procedure is in large part guided by the help of the Vancouver Classification system, which is a valid and reproducible system that classifies fractures based on several factors including site of fracture, implant stability and bone stock. PPFs account for approximately 18% of revision THA (rTHA) procedures. rTHA for PPFs is commonly indicated in Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, to bypass a lack of metaphyseal support with diaphyseal fixation. Such revisions are technically challenging and typically require urgent treatment, with inherent difficulties in patient optimization, leading to a notable rate of post-operative complications, re-revision and mortality. This article reviews epidemiology, health economics and risk factors for PPFs. It additionally reviews outcomes associated with rTHA for PPFs including peri-operative complications, indications for re-operation, rates of re-operation and rates of mortality. Finally, it aims to identify evidence-based factors that have been associated with successful management including modifiable patient-related factors, uncemented vs. cemented stems, stem design (porous coated stems vs. fluted tapered stems), modularity, dislocation and its impact on outcomes following rTHA and strategies for managing bone loss.

Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR).

METHODS

Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head.

RESULTS

At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates.

CONCLUSION

The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Radiographic Accuracy of Malseated Dual-Mobility Liners Varies Based on Implant Design

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility constructs have gained popularity to mitigate dislocations after high-risk primary and revision total hip arthroplasties. Contemporary data have indicated that malseating of modular dual-mobility liners occurs in up to 6% of cases. The purpose of this cadaveric-based radiographic study was to determine the ability to accurately determine if modular dual-mobility liners were seated.

METHODS

There were 10 hips (5 cadaveric pelvic specimens) used to implant modular dual-mobility liners of 2 designs. One had a liner that seated flush and the other had an extended rim. There were 20 constructs that were well-seated and 20 constructs were intentionally malseated. A comprehensive series of radiographs was reviewed by 2 blinded surgeons. Statistical analyses included Chi-squared testing, logistic regressions, and kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Radiographic assessment of liner malseating was not accurate with an elevated rim design with misdiagnosis in 40% (16 of 40). The flush design had diagnostic errors in 5% (2 of 40; P = .0002). Logistic regressions demonstrated a significantly higher risk of misdiagnosing a malseated liner in the elevated rim group (odds ratio 13). There were 12 of 16 misdiagnoses in the elevated rim group failing to recognize a malseated liner. Each surgeon had almost perfect agreement for intraobserver reliability for flush designs (k 0.90) and fair agreement in the elevated rim design (k 0.35).

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive series of plain radiographs can reliably detect a malseated modular dual-mobility liner with a flush rim design in 95% of cases. However, elevated rim designs are more difficult to accurately identify malseating on plain radiographs.

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.

Evaluation of Mechanically-Assisted Crevice Corrosion of Different Modular Dual Mobility Constructs

BACKGROUND

Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular component use is rising in total hip arthroplasty. However, concern of mechanically-assisted crevice corrosion (MACC) at the shell-liner interface remains. We investigated shell-liner corrosion using retrieval analyses and corrosion chamber testing.

METHODS

We analyzed fretting and corrosion on 10 matched pairs of two commercial modular dual mobility constructs (MDM1 and MDM2). Also, pristine pairs of Ti6Al4V shells and CoCrMo liners from three commercial dual mobility systems (MDM1, MDM2, MDM3) were tested in vitro to model MACC performance. Three pairs of each were placed into an electrochemical chamber with stepwise increasing cyclic compression loads, while measuring currents generated at the shell-liner taper. Onset fretting loads and fretting currents were calculated.

RESULTS

Corrosion damage scores on retrieved components were low, but higher in the MDM2 to MDM1 liners (P = 0.006), specifically outside the taper region (P = 0.00003). Fretting currents were higher in the MDM2 than in MDM1 or MDM3 (P = 0.011). Onset loads were also higher in the MDM2 (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among retrieved liners, MDM2 tapers seem prone to non-mechanical corrosion modes. Higher onset loads and fretting currents in MDM2 tapers indicate greater MACC resistance, but higher severity once corrosion begins. Differences among the devices were likely due to taper design and surface finish. Currents in all three were <5 μA, much lower than those observed with head-neck tapers. Our findings suggest that among the types of corrosion observed in these MDM designs, mechanically driven corrosion may not be the most significant.

Modular dual mobility articulation in primary and revision hip arthroplasty: lights and shadows

PURPOSE

The use of dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity in light of the fact it enables to reduce dislocation through increased jumping distance (JD) and impingement-free arc of movement. Modular Dual Mobility Cup (modular DMC) systems have been recently introduced to enable the use of dual mobility cups with standard metal-backed shells. The objective of this study was twofold: calculate the JD for each modular DMC system and conduct a systematic literature review to report clinical outcomes and reasons for failure of this construct.

METHODS

The JD was calculated using the Sariali formula: JD = 2Rsin [(π/2 - Ψ - arcsin (offset/R))/2]. A qualitative systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search for English and French articles between January 2000 and July 2020 was run on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus with the primary objective of finding articles about modular DMC systems.

RESULTS

We identified eight 8 different manufacturers of modular DMC systems and 327 publications on the subject. After screening for duplicates and eligibility, we identified 229 publications: 206 articles were excluded because they contained no reports on modular DMC systems, whereas other three were not included because they focused on biomechanical aspects. Among the 11 included articles, 2 were prospective case series, 9 were retrospective case series. True dislocation occurred in 25 cases (0.9%), and six of them were solved by closed reduction without necessity of revision, while all 5 intraprosthetic dislocations were operated.

CONCLUSIONS

Modular DMCs are a valid method to deal with complex THA instability, with good clinical and patient-reported outcomes, low complication rates, and low revision rates at early follow-up. We would advise cautious optimism on the role of modular DMC implants, as it seems safer to use ceramic instead of metallic heads whenever possible to avoid the increase cobalt and chromium trace ion serum levels.

Malseating of Modular Dual Mobility Liners: High Prevalence in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components have become increasingly more popular in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncertainty remains regarding liner malseating and its consequences after 5 to 10 years, especially in patients who undergo revision THA. The objective of this study was to analyze the prevalence of malseating and implant survivorship of patients who underwent revision THA using an MDM liner.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who had a minimum 2-year follow-up and underwent revision THA using an MDM liner. Patient demographics, implant details, mortality, and all-cause revisions were recorded. Patients who had radiographic follow-up were assessed for malseating. Kaplan Meier survival was used to determine implant survivorship. We included 143 hips in 141 patients. Mean age was 70 years (35 - 93 years) and 86 patients (60.1%) were female.

RESULTS

Overall implant survival was 89.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.843 - 0.946) at a mean follow-up of 6 years (range 2 to 10) years. There were eight patients excluded from malseating assessment. Upon radiological review, 15 liners (11.1%) were malseated. Survival for all-cause revision for patients with malseated liners was 80.0% (12/15, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.99, P= 0.15) versus 91.5% in patients who had non-malseated liners (110/120, 95% CI 0.86 - 0.96). There were no intraprosthetic dislocations and 3.5% of the patients were revised due to instability. No liners were revised due to malseating, and no patients who had malseated liners were revised due to instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Using MDM components in our cohort comprised of revision THA was associated with a high prevalence of malseating and an overall survival of 89.3% at a mean follow up of 6 years. Malseating does not appear to impact implant survival at a mean follow-up of 6 years.

Dual-Mobility Versus Large Femoral Heads in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Interim Analysis of A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluated if dual-mobility bearings (DM) lower the risk of dislocation compared to large femoral heads (≥36mm) for patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterior approach.

METHODS

A total of 146 Patients were randomized to a DM (n=76; 46 mm median effective head size, range 36 to 59 mm) or a large femoral head (n=70; twenty-five 36 mm heads [35.7%], forty-one 40 mm heads [58.6%], and four 44mm heads [5.7%]). There were 71 single-component revisions (48.6%), 39 both-component revisions (26.7%), 24 reimplantations of THA after 2-stage revision (16.4%), seven isolated head and liner exchanges (4.8%), four conversions of hemiarthroplasty (2.7%), and one revision of a hip resurfacing (0.7%). Power analysis determined that 161 patients were required in each group to lower the dislocation rate from 8.4 to 2.2% (power=0.8, alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

At a mean of 18.2 months (range, 1.4 to 48.2), there were three dislocations in the large femoral head group compared to two in the DM cohort (4.3 vs. 2.6%; P=0.67). One patient in the large head group and none in the DM group were successfully treated with closed reduction without subsequent revision.

CONCLUSION

Interim analysis of this randomized controlled trial found no difference in the risk of dislocation between DM and large femoral heads in revision THA, although the rate of dislocation was lower than anticipated and continued follow up is needed.

Dislocation Rates of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion and Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease With and Without Utilization of Dual Mobility Cups: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a previous history of lumbar spine fusion (LSF) are at increased risk of dislocation. The purpose of this study was to compare the 90-day and 1-year dislocation rates of patients with LSF or lumbar degenerative disk disease who underwent primary THA with and without dual mobility (DM) constructs.

METHODS

An American Joint Replacement Registry data set of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing primary THA with minimum 1-year follow-up with a history of prior LSF or a diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disk disease was created. DM status was identified, and dislocation and all-cause revision at 90 days and 1 year were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 15,572 patients met study criteria. The overall dislocation rates for the non-DM and DM groups were 1.17% and 0.68%, respectively, at 90 days, and 1.68% and 0.91%, respectively, at 1 year ( P = 0.005). The odds of 90-day (OR = 0.578, [ P = 0.0328]) and 1-year (OR = 0.534, [ P = 0.0044]) dislocation were significantly less with DM constructs, compared with non-DM constructs. No statistically significant difference was observed in revision rates between groups.

DISCUSSION

This large registry-based study identified a reduced risk of dislocation in patients at risk for spinal stiffness when a DM compared with non-DM construct was used in primary THA at 90-day and 1-year follow-up intervals. Our data support the use of DM constructs in high-risk patients with stiff spines and altered spinopelvic mobility as a promising option to mitigate the risk of postoperative hip instability after primary THA.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III. Therapeutic retrospective cohort.

Cementless augmented versus cemented Dual Mobility cups: medium-term outcome of case series with a control group

BACKGROUND

Post-operative dislocation and reconstruction of acetabular defects are two challenging topics in revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (rTHA). Cemented Dual Mobility (DM) cups on top of Kerboull Cross and bone graft have been successfully employed to overcome these challenges. The cementless augmented DM cups were recently introduced. In this study medium term results of the augmented cementless DM Coptos cups are reported and compared to the established technique of cemented DM cups and Kerboull plate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of data collected on patients who received rTHA using DM cups in the period between June 2015 and September 2020. Two groups of patients were identified. The first group received cementless augmented DM-cups (NOVAE® Coptos TH-SERF) (Coptos TH cup group). The second comparable group who had Kerboull ring (KE ring group) and cemented DM cups (NOVAE® STICK). Demographic data, surgical technique, functional and radiological outcome as well as complications during the follow-up visits are reported.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with a mean age at the time of revision 48.8 ± 13.6 years. 29 patients received Coptos TH DM-cup, while 13 patients had Bone Graft (BG), KE ring and cemented DM cups for acetabular reconstruction. Acetabular defects were Paprosky types IIB and IIC in 31 patients and IIIA and B in 11 patients. The follow-up was 52.8 ± 21 months (mean ± STD); and the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) at last visit was 91 ± 5. Good stability of all cups was reported. Full integration of the impaction graft was observed in 94% of the Coptos and 92% of the KE groups. One of the Coptos cups was readjusted and one case of single dislocation was recorded in the KE group. None of the DM cups in both groups was revised or awaiting revision.

CONCLUSION

Coptos TH cups achieve similar results to the cemented DM on KE ring at the medium term but long term outcome remains to be seen.

Hip arthroplasty dislocation risk calculator: evaluation of one million primary implants and twenty-five thousand dislocations with deep learning artificial intelligence in a systematic review of reviews

PURPOSE

This paper aims to provide an overview of the possibility regarding the artificial intelligence application in orthopaedics to predict dislocation with a calculator according to the type of implant (hemiarthroplasty, standard total hip arthroplasty, dual mobility, constrained cups) after primary arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Among 75 results for primary arthroplasties, 26 articles were reviews on dislocation after hemiarthroplasty, 40 after standard total hip arthroplasty, seven about primary dual-mobility arthroplasty (DM THA), and two reviews about constrained implants. Although our search method for systematic reviews covers ten years (2012-2022), none for dual mobility was published before 2016, showing a recent explosion of original articles on this subject. A total of 1,069,565 implants and 26,488 dislocations in primary arthroplasties are included in these 75 reviews. We used a supervised learning model in which models assign objects to groups as input and artificial neural network (ANN) with nodes, hidden layers, and output layers. We considered only four implant types as the input layer. We considered the patient's factors (indication for THA, demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease) as the second input values (hidden layer). We considered the implant position as the third input (hidden layer) property including head size, combined anteversion, or spinopelvic alignment. Surgery-related factors, approach, capsule repair, etc. were the fourth input values (hidden layer). The output was a post-operative dislocation or not within three months.

RESULTS

The accuracy for predicting dislocation with this systematic review was 95%. Dislocation risk, based on the type of implant, was wide-ranging, from 0 to 3.9% (mean 0.31%) for the 3045 DM THA, from 0.2 to 1.2% (overall 0.91%) for the 457 constrained liners, from 1.76 to 4.2% (mean 2.1%) for 895,734 conventional total hip arthroplasties, and from 0.76 to 12.2% (mean 4.5%) for 170,329 hemiarthroplasties. In the conventional THA group, many factors increase the risk of dislocation according to the calculator, and only a few (big head, anterior approach) decrease the risk, but not very significantly. In the hemiarthroplasty group, many factors can increase the risk of dislocation until 30%, but none could decrease the risk. According to the calculator, the DM THA and the constrained liner markedly decreased the risk and were not affected by implant position, spine surgery, and spinopelvic position.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to yield an implant-specific dislocation risk calculator that incorporates the patient's comorbidities, the position of components, and surgery factors affecting instability risk.

The Role of Dual-Mobility Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty

➤

Dual mobility (DM) refers to a now widely available option for total hip articulation. DM implants feature a small inner head, a hard bearing, that connects via a taper fit onto the femoral trunnion. This head freely rotates but is encased inside a larger, outer polyethylene head that articulates with a smooth acetabular component.

➤

DM acetabular components are available in the form of a monoblock shell or as a liner that is impacted into a modular shell, providing a metal articulation for the polyethylene outer head.

➤

DM is designed to increase hip stability by providing the arthroplasty construct with a higher jump distance, head-to-neck ratio, and range of motion prior to impingement.

➤

The use of DM in total hip arthroplasty continues to increase in the United States for both primary and revision arthroplasty. Surgeons should be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls.

➤

Long-term data are lacking, especially for modular DM implants. Points of concern include a potential for accelerated polyethylene wear, intraprosthetic dislocation, and modular backside fretting corrosion.

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.

Cemented and cementless dual mobility cups show similar fixation, low polyethylene wear, and low serum cobalt-chromium in elderly patients: a randomized radiostereometry study with 6 years' follow-up

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Dual mobility (DM) articulation total hip arthroplasty (THA) is used increasingly to reduce dislocation risk. We investigated cup fixation, polyethylene (PE) wear, serum chromium and cobalt ions, and their correlation to physical activity in patients with DM cups at 6-year follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a patient-blinded RCT, 60 patients with hip osteoarthritis at a median age of 74 years (70-82) were randomly allocated to cemented (n = 30) or cementless hydroxyapatite-coated (n = 30) fixation of Avantage DM THA with a highly-crosslinked vitamin-E PE liner. Cup migration and PE wear were measured with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), chromium and cobalt ions were measured in serum, and physical activity was measured with accelerometers.

RESULTS

At 6-year follow-up, proximal cup migration was similar: 0.14 mm (95% CI 0.01-0.28) for cemented cups and 0.21 mm (0.02-0.39) for cementless cups. The PE wear rate from 1- to 6-year follow-up was also similar: 0.06 mm/year (0.04-0.09) for cemented cups and 0.07 mm/year (0.04-0.11) for cementless cups. Serum metal ion levels were undetectable or very low. Physical activity was mainly low intensity and did not correlate to PE wear rate or cup migration.

CONCLUSION

Cemented and cementless DM cups with highly crosslinked vitamin-E infused liners have similar cup migration and PE wear when used for primary THA surgery.

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.

Outcome and risk factors of failures associated with revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Liner Dissociation and Acetabular Erosion Treated by Implant Retention and Dual-Mobility Liner Cementation: A Case Report

CASE

A 56-year-old woman underwent a left total hip arthroplasty (THA) after developing avascular necrosis after chemotherapeutic treatment of breast cancer. She presented approximately 2 years after index THA with left groin pain and complaints of instability. Imaging revealed pseudodislocation of the ceramic femoral head with erosion through the acetabular component. Intraoperative evaluation revealed a dissociated polyethylene liner, damaged acetabular locking mechanism, metallosis, and well-fixed and aligned components. Treatment consisted of component retention, bone grafting, and dual-mobility liner cementation into the acetabular component.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-year follow-up demonstrated a pain-free, well-functioning hip, bone graft incorporation, and no evidence of loosening.

Instability After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Dual Mobility Versus Jumbo Femoral Heads

BACKGROUND

The use of dual mobility (DM) articulations has grown substantially over the last decade to help minimize dislocation risk. The purpose of this study is to compare the results of DM articulations to jumbo femoral heads of equivalent sizes as they relate to postoperative dislocation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed at a single institution between 2005 and 2018. DM articulations and large-diameter metal-on-metal femoral heads were included. Patients were followed with Harris Hip Scores and standard radiographs. Complications were prospectively recorded. Statistical analyses included chi-squared and Brown-Forsythe tests.

RESULTS

In total, 1,288 Magnum femoral head THAs and 365 Active Articulation DM THAs were included for analysis. The same monoblock cup was implanted via a posterior approach in all cases. Age, gender, body mass index, and diagnosis were similar between groups. Average follow-up in the DM group was 49 months, and 126 months in the jumbo head group. The average head sizes in the DM and jumbo head groups were 50 mm. There were no dislocations in the DM hips and only 2 (0.2%) in the jumbo femoral head group. Both groups had significant improvements in Harris Hip Score from their preoperative baseline.

CONCLUSION

Our study found similarly low dislocation rates in DM and jumbo femoral heads in primary THA. No evidence currently exists showing a benefit of the DM articulation beyond that of the large effective head size, and we recommend making every attempt at maximizing head size prior to using DM articulations.

Creation of a Total Hip Arthroplasty Patient-Specific Dislocation Risk Calculator

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been described for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet a patient-specific risk assessment tool remains elusive. The purpose of this study was to develop a high-dimensional, patient-specific risk-stratification nomogram that allows dynamic risk modification based on operative decisions.

METHODS

In this study, 29,349 THAs, including 21,978 primary and 7371 revision cases, performed between 1998 and 2018 were evaluated. During a mean 6-year follow-up, 1521 THAs were followed by a dislocation. Patients were characterized, through individual-chart review, according to non-modifiable factors (demographics, indication for THA, spine disease, prior spine surgery, and neurologic disease) and modifiable operative decisions (operative approach, femoral head diameter, and type of acetabular liner [standard, elevated, constrained, or dual-mobility]). Multivariable regression models and nomograms were developed with dislocation as a binary outcome at 1 year and 5 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Dislocation risk, based on patient-specific comorbidities and operative decisions, was wide-ranging-from 0.3% to 13% at 1 year and from 0.4% to 19% at 5 years after primary THA, and from 2% to 32% at 1 year and from 3% to 42% at 5 years after revision THA. In the primary-THA group, the direct anterior approach (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.27) and lateral approach (HR = 0.58) decreased the dislocation risk compared with the posterior approach. After adjusting for the approach in that group, the combination of a ≥36-mm-diameter femoral head and an elevated liner yielded the largest decrease in dislocation risk (HR = 0.28), followed by dual-mobility constructs (HR = 0.48). In the patients who underwent revision THA, the adjusted risk of dislocation was most markedly decreased by the use of a dual-mobility construct (HR = 0.40), followed by a ≥36-mm femoral head and an elevated liner (HR = 0.88). The adjusted risk of dislocation after revision THA was decreased by acetabular revision (HR = 0.58), irrespective of whether other components were revised.

CONCLUSIONS

Our patient-specific dislocation risk calculator, which was strengthened by our use of a robust multivariable model that accounted for comorbidities associated with instability, demonstrated wide-ranging patient-specific risks based on comorbidity profiles. The resultant nomograms can be used as a screening tool to identify patients at high risk for dislocation following THA and to individualize operative decisions for evidence-based risk mitigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size?

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings.

CONCLUSION

Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Liner malseating is rare with two modular dual-mobility designs

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of liner malseating in two commonly used dual-mobility (DM) designs. Secondary aims included determining the risk of dislocation, survival, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 256 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) that included a DM component (144 Stryker MDM and 112 Zimmer-Biomet G7) in 233 patients, performed between January 2012 and December 2019. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed independently for malseating of the liner by five reviewers. The mean age of the patients at the time of THA was 66 years (18 to 93), 166 (65%) were female, and the mean BMI was 30 kg/m² (17 to 57). The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (2.0 to 9.2).

RESULTS

Three liners (1.2%) were malseated, including two MDMs (1.4%) and one G7 (0.9%). No clinical consequence was identified from malseating. The five-year survival free of dislocation was 97.1%, including two DM and one intraprosthetic dislocation. The five-year survival free of revision was 95.4%, with seven revisions. The mean Harris Hip Scores increased from 46 (24 to 69) preoperatively to 81 (40 to 100) at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of DM liner malseating after primary THA was low, with no known clinical consequences at mid-term follow-up. Malseating is not exclusive of design, and these findings emphasize the importance of careful evaluation of the liner after impaction to avoid this complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):598-603.

Hip stability parameters with dual mobility, modular dual mobility and fixed bearing in total hip arthroplasty: an analytical evaluation

Background

Use of dual mobility (DM) in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity due to the ability to reduce dislocation through increased jumping distance and impingement-free arc of movement. Recently, modular dual mobility (modDM) systems were introduced to give the possibility to use DM with standard metal-backed shells, however few has been studied to date regarding how jumping distance and the center of rotation change with modDM. The objective of this study was to evaluate, through analytical simulation, how jumping distance, center of rotation and arc of movement change between DM and standard cups with modDM or fixed bearings (FB).

Methods

3D-models of DM and standard press-fit cups with modDM or FB liners were used to simulate DM, modDM and FB implant configurations, matched for same cup size, according to same cup position and different femoral head diameters. Jumping distance was calculated and center of rotation lateralization and oscillation angles were measured for each size of these three implant configurations.

Results

Jumping distance with modDM was reduced by -3.9 mm to -8.6 mm in comparison with DM, from 48 to 64 mm size, but resulted comparable to polyethylene 36 mm FB and increased by + 1.1 mm and + 1.4 mm than ceramic 36 and 40 mm FBs for sizes > 54 mm. ModDM lateralized the center of rotation up to + 2.5 mm and + 4.0 mm in comparison with DM and FBs, respectively. Oscillation angle with modDM resulted higher than + 16°, + 23°, + 17° and + 14° in comparison to DM, 28 mm, 32 mm and 36 mm FB cups, respectively, for 56 mm cup size.

Conclusions

According to its specific design, modDM might change hip stability parameters in comparison to DM, worsening jumping distance and center of rotation position, but increasing arc of movement. As not restoring stability parameters in the same fashion, modDM implants should be properly used when DM cups are not feasible.

Dual-mobility constructs versus large femoral head bearings in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate.

RESULTS

9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1-1.20; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings.

Tripolar Constrained and Dual Mobility Liners Are Both Successful When Cemented Into Tantalum Acetabular Revision Shells in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Instability is a common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty. Tripolar constrained (TC) and dual mobility (DM) liners cemented into tantalum acetabular revision (TM) shells are established alternatives that reduce instability risk. This study compares outcomes of TC and DM liners cemented into TM shells in complex revision hip replacements.

Methods

Fifty cases using a TM shell and a TC or DM cemented liner with at least 12 months of follow-up were identified. There were 25 TC and 25 DM liners. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Reasons for re-revision and failures were analyzed.

Results

The average age was 73 years in the TC group and 75 years in the DM group. The median follow-up duration was 50 months (23 - 96) and 13 months (12 – 21) for the TC and DM groups, respectively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 37 to 61 for the TC group and from 51 to 73 in the DM group at the last review. Two TC cases required revision for wear and liner failure. One DM insert was changed at reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture. There were no failures of cement fixation in either group and no revisions for cup loosening.

Conclusions

In complex revision hip replacement with a history of instability or judged to have a high risk of instability postoperatively, TC and DM liners cemented into tantalum revision shells are both successful, giving acceptable results. The improved arc of movement with DM liners, minimizing impingement, makes them preferable except when there is a global abductor deficiency or severe joint laxity.

Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications

INTRODUCTION

Reconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs.

HYPOTHESIS

The use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26-94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%).

RESULTS

Eighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2-10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58-82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85-98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26-100] at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort.

Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss Using a Tantalum Acetabular Shell and a Cemented Monoblock Dual Mobility Acetabular Cup

As the number of revision total hip arthroplasty increases, innovative solutions to complex problems are needed to address challenges posed by these complex cases. Severe acetabular bone loss, including cases of pelvic discontinuity, is a notable challenge with few solutions. Hip instability after revision arthroplasty remains one of the leading causes of revision and patient morbidity. The use of pelvic distraction and a press-fit tantalum shell for chronic discontinuity and posterior column open reduction and internal fixation with acetabular revision for acute pelvic discontinuity have previously been described. Similarly, dual mobility articulations have demonstrated long-term success in minimizing instability after revision total hip arthroplasty with good long-term survivorship. Here, the authors present a surgical technique in the management of Paprosky types 2 and 3 acetabular defects often with pelvic discontinuity using a tantalum shell in combination with cemented dual mobility liner to increase the stability of the joint. Custom screw placement is facilitated with the use of a metal cutting burr, both on the back table and in situ. The dual mobility liner is cemented, thus allowing for independent positioning of the acetabular implant and bearing surface. This technique has been successfully used in 19 patients with encouraging short-term results.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.

Dual-mobility versus Fixed-bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcome Comparison

Purpose

Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA.

Materials and Methods

All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes.

Results

Of the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups.

Conclusion

DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA. Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

Modular Dual Mobility Constructs Used for Recurrent Hip Instability

Background

Recurrent hip dislocation despite prior attempts at surgical stabilization is a dreadful and technically challenging complication. A modular dual mobility (MDM) articulation has shown promise in addressing this problem, which might seem intractable. Our purpose was to examine the outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an MDM placed through a direct anterior (DA) approach when all other conservative and surgical treatments have failed.

Methods

Fifteen patients revised with an MDM for recurrent instability (RI) between 2012 and 2018 by a single surgeon at a single institution were reviewed retrospectively, with a minimum of two years' follow-up. All patients underwent full acetabular revision with an MDM articulation through a DA approach with intraoperative fluoroscopy. No stems were revised. Dislocations, complications, and clinical outcomes are reported.

Results 

All patients had recurrent posterior instability with a mean number of 4 ± 2 (range: 2 to 8) dislocations prior to MDM revision THA (MDM rTHA). Eight patients had already failed surgical intervention for instability, and seven had failed repeated closed reductions and conservative care. After MDM rTHA, there were no dislocations at a mean follow-up of 4 ± 1 years (range: 2 to 8). Similarly, there were no further revisions or reoperations. Postoperatively, the mean cup inclination improved to 45 ± 2 degrees (range: 41 to 48), and the mean anteversion improved to 20 ± 2 degrees (range: 17 to 23). All cups were well-positioned utilizing fluoroscopic guidance. The mean effective head size increased from 32 mm to 44 mm. The mean hip disability and osteoarthritis disability score (HOOS, Jr) was 73 ± 25% (range: 40 to 100).

Conclusion

Refractory hip instability in THA may be effectively managed with an MDM articulation, even when prior attempts at surgical stabilization have failed. Intraoperative imaging and a direct anterior approach may aid the challenges of implant positioning and achieving hip stability in a revision setting.

No Difference in Dislocation Rates Comparing Large Diameter Jumbo Femoral Heads and Dual-Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings reduce instability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM bearings are costly and reports of corrosion have recently emerged. Furthermore, no study has compared DM to standard bearings with large diameter femoral heads ≥40-mm. This study's purpose was to compare postoperative dislocation rates of standard and DM bearings with large femoral heads after revision THA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 301 consecutive revision THAs was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.1 months. To isolate the effect of the double articulation, standard and DM bearings with femoral heads ≥40-mm were compared. Outcomes were postoperative dislocation and reoperation within 90 days.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 182 standard bearings and 75 DM bearings. There were no differences in revision indication comparing standard and DM bearings (P = .258). Overall dislocation rate was 8.6% (22 of 257). The dislocation rate was 5.7% for standard bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads compared with 6.9% in DM bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads (P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, lower body mass index (odds ratio 1.72), female sex (odds ratio 2.01), and decreased outer femoral head diameter-to-cup component size ratio (odds ratio 1.64) were predictors of postoperative dislocation regardless of bearing type.

CONCLUSION

This study showed no difference in dislocation rates between standard and DM bearings when comparing similar femoral head diameters of ≥40-mm used in revision THAs. Considering the cost and potential deleterious issues associated with additional interfaces, DM bearings should be used judiciously considering similar results may be achieved with single-articulation bearings using large femoral heads.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Malseating of modular dual mobility liners

Aims

Prior studies have identified that malseating of a modular dual mobility liner can occur, with previous reported incidences between 5.8% and 16.4%. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of malseating in dual mobility implants at our institution, assess for risk factors for liner malseating, and investigate whether liner malseating has any impact on clinical outcomes after surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs of 239 primary and revision total hip arthroplasties with a modular dual mobility liner. Two independent reviewers assessed radiographs for each patient twice for evidence of malseating, with a third observer acting as a tiebreaker. Univariate analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for malseating with Youden’s index used to identify cut-off points. Cohen’s kappa test was used to measure interobserver and intraobserver reliability.

Results

In all, 12 liners (5.0%), including eight Stryker (6.8%) and four Zimmer Biomet (3.3%), had radiological evidence of malseating. Interobserver reliability was found to be 0.453 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.64), suggesting weak inter-rater agreement, with strong agreement being greater than 0.8. We found component size of 50 mm or less to be associated with liner malseating on univariate analysis (p = 0.031). Patients with malseated liners appeared to have no associated clinical consequences, and none required revision surgery at a mean of 14 months (1.4 to 99.2) postoperatively.

Conclusion

The incidence of liner malseating was 5.0%, which is similar to other reports. Component size of 50 mm or smaller was identified as a risk factor for malseating. Surgeons should be aware that malseating can occur and implant design changes or changes in instrumentation should be considered to lower the risk of malseating. Although further follow-up is needed, it remains to be seen if malseating is associated with any clinical consequences.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):858–864.

Effect of Bone Coverage on Acetabular Implant Stresses in Standard and Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty Constructs: A Finite Element Model

Although mechanical stress in total hip arthroplasty modular head-neck junctions is thought to contribute to the risk of trunnionosis and related metal ion disease in total hip arthroplasty, little is known about mechanical stress in the modular acetabular components. Recent retrieval analyses of dual-mobility constructs have demonstrated corrosion between liner and shell in some dual-mobility acetabular components. The objective of this study was to evaluate acetabular stress as a function of acetabular bone coverage, component modularity, and femoral head diameter. A parametric finite element model was created. The acetabulum was set at 40° of abduction and 15° of anteversion; superolateral bone loss up to 50° was modeled; and 28-mm, 32-mm, 36-mm, and 40-mm head sizes were simulated in stance phase of gait. Fixed polyethylene-bearing, monoblock and modular dual-mobility (MDM) acetabular components were evaluated. For traditional fixed-bearing components, the largest peak stress, 49.5 MPa, was observed with 50° of bone loss and a 28-mm head. The lowest peak stress, 6.3 MPa, occurred with complete bone coverage and a 36-mm head. Peak stress in the MDM construct, 25.1 MPa, concentrated in the chromium-cobalt portion of the construct. Larger head diameters are associated with decreased stress in the acetabular component when bone loss is present. An MDM construct with a stiff inner liner may decrease overall stress in the acetabular construct, but focally increased stress near the rim of uncovered acetabular components may increase the risk of metal-on-metal corrosion. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(5):280-284.].

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.

RESULTS

There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Modular dual mobility total hip arthroplasty is a viable option for young, active patients : a mid-term follow-up study

AIMS

Dual mobility (DM) implants have been shown to reduce the dislocation rate after total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there remain concerns about the use of cobalt chrome liners inserted into titanium shells. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes, metal ion levels, and periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density (BMD) at mid-term follow-up in young, active patients receiving a modular DM THA.

METHODS

This was a prospective study involving patients aged < 65 years, with a BMI of < 35 kg/m², and University of California, Los Angeles activity score of > 6 who underwent primary THA with a modular cobalt chrome acetabular liner, highly cross-linked polyethylene mobile bearing, and a cementless titanium femoral stem. Patient-reported outcome measures, whole blood metal ion levels (μg/l), and periprosthetic femoral BMD were measured at baseline and at one, two, and five years postoperatively. The results two years postoperatively for this cohort have been previously reported.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients were enrolled. At minimum follow-up of five years, 23 (53.4%) returned for clinical and radiological review, 25 (58.1%) had metal ion analysis performed, 19 (44.2%) underwent dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and 25 (58%) completed a pain-drawing questionnaire. The mean modified Harris Hip Scores improved significantly from 54.8 (SD 19) preoperatively to 93.08 (SD 10.5) five years postoperatively (p < 0.001). One patient was revised for aseptic acetabular loosening. The mean cobalt levels increased from 0.065 μg/l (SD 0.03) to 0.08 (SD 0.05) and the mean titanium levels increased from 0.35 (SD 0.13) to 0.78 (SD 0.29). The femoral BMD ratio decreased in Gruen Zone 1 (91.9%) at five years postoperatively compared with the baseline scores at six weeks potoperatively. The femoral BMD ratio was maintained in Gruen zones 2 to 7.

CONCLUSION

The use of a modular DM component and a cementless, tapered femoral stem shows excellent mid-term survivorship with minimal concerns for corrosion and metal ion release in a cohort of young, active patients undergoing primary THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):73-77.