Relative head size increase using an anatomic dual mobility hip prosthesis compared to traditional hip arthroplasty: impact on hip stability

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

A Retrieval Analysis of Impingement in Dual-Mobility Liners

BACKGROUND

Implant-related impingement is likely a major causative factor of total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability. Dual-mobility (DM) cups can theoretically improve stability in THA, but impingement rates with DM cups are not well studied. We examined retrieved DM THA liners to determine if less evidence existed for prosthetic impingement between the neck and the polyethylene liner than historical studies from our institution on fixed-bearing THAs.

METHODS

DM components from 93 THAs were identified from 164 THAs whose DM components were revised between 2008 and 2015 through our institutional review board-approved implant retrieval program. The mean age was 63 ± 11 years, mean body mass index was 30 ± 7 kg/m², and mean length of implantation was 2.08 ± 1.89 years. Two independent graders scored each liner for the presence and severity of impingement. Radiographs were evaluated for inclination, anteversion, change in leg length, and combined offset.

RESULTS

Only 21.5% (20/93) of DM cups showed evidence of impingement compared to 77% (75/97) of fixed-bearing cups found in a previous study performed at our institution (P < .001). Of the revision components, 35.2% (5/14) demonstrated evidence of impingement compared to 19.7% (14/71) implanted in primary surgery (P = .189). In the cohort revised for instability, the rate of impingement was 35.3% (6/17); for the implants revised for any other reason, the impingement rate was 18.4% (14/77) (P = .126).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that DM liners significantly reduce the rate of impingement (21.5%) when compared to fixed-bearing liners (77%).

The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

Although long-term reports of total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed successful results, instability remains a major complication. Recently, dual-mobility cups (DMC) have gained more and more interest among clinicians, with encouraging results in terms of lower rate of dislocation associated with good clinical results, but a lack of evidence exists regarding the real efficacy of this implant design compared to traditional fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasties.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Google scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE by two independent reviewers for comparative studies available till December 2017, with the primary objective to demonstrate a real lower dislocation rate of DMC implants compared to unipolar fixed-bearing cup designs. A meta-analysis was conducted with the collected pooled data about dislocation rate, calculating the risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables. Heterogeneity was tested using the χ² and Higgins' I² tests. A fixed-effect model was used because the statistical heterogeneity was below 50%.

RESULTS

After performing a critical exclusion process, the number of eligible studies included for final synthesis considered was 15, describing the results of a total of 2408 total hip arthroplasties (50.6% with a dual-mobility acetabular cup design, 49.4% with a standard fixed-bearing design). The fixed-effect meta-analysis showed a slight significant risk ratio of 0.16 (95% CI, 0.09, 0.28; I² = 0%, p < 0.00001); a statistically significant difference in favor of the DMC group was maintained also considering only primary or revision arthroplasties, traumatic fractures or elective patients with diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular osteonecrosis or rheumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

With the intrinsic limitations of our study design and based on the current available data, this study demonstrates that dual-mobility acetabular components decrease the risk of post-operative instability also in high-risk patients, both in primary and revision hip arthroplasties. However, new high-quality studies, possibly with a randomized control design, should be undertaken in order to strengthen the present data.

STUDY DESIGN

Level of Evidence III, therapeutic study.

Prevention of Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Prevention of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) begins with patient preoperative assessment and planning.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to assess historical perspectives and current strategies to prevent dislocation after primary THA. The search yielded 3458 articles, and 154 articles are presented.

RESULTS

Extremes of age, body mass index >30 kg/m², lumbosacral pathology, surgeon experience, and femoral head size influence dislocation rates after THA. There is mixed evidence regarding the effect of neuromuscular disease, sequelae of pediatric hip conditions, and surgical approach on THA instability. Sex, simultaneous bilateral THA, and restrictive postoperative precautions do not influence the dislocation rates of THA. Navigation, robotics, lipped liners, and dual-mobility acetabular components may improve dislocation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Risks for dislocation should be identified, and measures should be taken to mitigate the risk. Reliance on safe zones of acetabular component positioning is historical. We are in an era of bespoke THA surgery.

The Effect of Pelvic Tilt and Femoral Head Size on Hip Range-of-Motion to Impingement

BACKGROUND

About 50%-70% of dislocators have cups placed within so-called "safe zones." It has been postulated that factors such as femoral head size and pelvic tilt, obliquity, or rotation may influence postoperative stability. Therefore, we assessed varying degrees of pelvic tilt and head sizes on the range of motion (ROM) to impingement.

METHODS

A hip simulator was used to import models of 10 subjects who performed object pickup, squatting, and low-chair rising. Parameters were set for pelvic tilt, stem version, and the specific motions as defined by the subjects. Femur-to-pelvis relative motions were determined for abduction/adduction, internal/external rotation, and flexion/extension. Varying tilt angles were tested. Thirty-two millimeter and 36-mm head with a standard cup and 42-mm dual mobility cup were tested. Cup orientations for abduction and anteversion combinations were chosen, and computations of minimum clearances or impingement between components were made.

RESULTS

The ROM to impingement varied with the different pelvic tilts and femoral head sizes and with the different motions. The larger the head size, the larger the impingement-free ROM. Negative 10° of pelvic tilt led to the largest impingement-free zone, whereas 10° of forward tilt was associated with fewer impingement-free cup anteversion and abduction angle combinations. Variations in pelvic tilt had the greatest influence on object pickup and affected the impingement-free "safe zone."

CONCLUSION

Targets for impingement-free motion may be smaller when considering varying pelvic tilts and femoral head sizes, particularly for certain activities, such as object pickup. These findings may indicate the need for more individualized patient planning.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Highly crosslinked polyethylene: a safe alternative to conventional polyethylene for dual mobility cup mobile component. A biomechanical validation

PURPOSE

Dual mobility cup (DMC) consists of a cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy cup articulated with a polyethylene (PE) mobile component capturing the femoral head in force using a snap-fit technique. This biomechanical study was the first to evaluate and compare the generation of cracks in the retentive area of DMC mobile components made of highly crosslinked PE (XLPE) or conventional ultra-high molecular weight PE (UHMWPE).

METHODS

Eighty mobile components designed for a 52-mm diameter Symbol® DMC (Dedienne Santé, Mauguio, France) and a 28-mm diameter femoral head were analyzed. Four groups of 20 mobile components were constituted according to the PE material: raw UHMWPE, sterilized UHMWPE, annealed XLPE and remelted XLPE. Ten mobile components in each group were impacted with a 28-mm diameter CoCr femoral head using a snap-fit technique. The occurrence, location and area of the cracks in the retentive area were investigated using micro-CT (Skyscan 1176®, Bruker, Aarsellar, Belgium) with a 35 μm nominal isotropic voxel size by two observers blinded to the PE material and impaction or not of the mobile components.

RESULTS

Compared to conventional UHMWPE, the femoral head snap-fit did not generate more or wider cracks in the retentive area of annealed or remelted XLPE mobile components.

CONCLUSION

This biomechanical study suggests that XLPE in DMC could be a safe alternative to conventional UHMWPE regarding the generation of cracks in the retentive area related to the femoral head snap-fit.

High Failure Rate of Modular Exchange With a Specific Design of a Constrained Liner in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Addressing recurrent instability in patients with poor bone stock and inadequate abductor tensioning remains a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty. One treatment method is implantation of a constrained liner. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcomes, redislocation rate, and revisions of a focally constrained liner in a high-risk patient cohort.

METHODS

Fifty-eight hips between 2008 and 2011 underwent implantation of a focally constrained liner. Nineteen were placed concurrent with acetabular component revision and 39 were placed into a well-fixed acetabular shell. Mean age was 69 years and mean number of previous ipsilateral hip surgeries was 4.2. At mean follow-up of 3.5 years, we analyzed clinical outcomes, redislocation, and revisions.

RESULTS

Mean Harris Hip Scores was 74. Fourteen hips (24%) were revised and 3 hips (5%) required reoperation at final follow-up. Eleven hips (19%) redislocated at a mean time to dislocation of 12.2 months; 31% (11 of 36 patients) that underwent modular exchange specifically for instability redislocated. Risk factors for redislocation included number of previous surgeries (P = .013), implantation of a 28 mm femoral head (hazards ratio 12.8), revision indication of instability (P = .04), and modular exchange with constrained liner implantation without acetabular shell revision (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a focally constrained liner in revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent instability has a high failure rate, especially with a modular exchange. Although concurrent acetabular revision had a lower redislocation rate, the decision to revise a well-fixed cup should be weighed with potential complications associated with cup revision.

Lack of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty with a new dual mobility acetabular design

Dual mobility implant designs minimise the risk of dislocation without sacrificing range of motion. Between 1st September 2008 and 31st July 2011, 5 institutions examined early clinical outcomes of a new dual mobility bearing hip system implanted in 485 primary THAs in 452 patients. Patient demographics were 46% female, a mean age of 67 years and a mean BMI of 30. Complications at a minimum of 2 years after surgery included 1 femur fracture, 1 DVT and 4 unrelated deaths. There were no dislocations. For functional outcomes, Harris Hip Scores increased from 41 to 86 (p<0.001), while VAS pain scores decreased from 5.9 to 0.7 (p<0.001). Minimal complications, excellent early clinical outcomes and the absence of early dislocations demonstrate the improved stability of this dual mobility implant system.