Dual-Mobility Constructs in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

A comparison of dislocation risk between dual mobility and traditional constructs used in proximal femoral replacement

Background

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a reconstruction technique after tumor resection or for revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, despite acceptable long-term oncologic and functional outcomes, extensive soft tissue or bone loss increases the risk for prosthetic instability. Instability may depend on the construct chosen for reconstruction, with current options including bipolar, constrained, or dual mobility implants. Clinical studies comparing patient outcomes after PFR with these three different constructs are limited.

Methods

This study retrospectively examined a single tertiary academic institution's experience with PFR over a fifteen-year period. The medical records of patients who underwent PFR for indications such as tumor and failed THA with bone loss were reviewed. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on use of bipolar, constrained, or dual mobility implants. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, perioperative data, and data on prosthetic dislocations were recorded. ANOVA and chi-square testing was performed for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The threshold for statistical significance was set to p < 0.05.

Results

106 patients were identified who underwent PFR. 46 underwent PFR with bipolar prosthesis (follow-up: 20 ± 24.57 months), 42 with constrained liner (follow-up: 30.45 ± 35.32 months), and 18 with dual mobility (follow-up: 15.38 ± 15.67 months). Only BMI (p = 0.036) and smoking history (P = 0.002) differed between groups. Dislocations occurred in 4 (8.7 %) patients who underwent reconstruction with bipolar prosthesis, compared to 8 (19.0 %) with constrained liner, and 3 (16.7 %) patients with dual mobility. Mean time to dislocation was significantly longer in dual mobility patients (P = 0.009). There were no differences in instances of early dislocation between groups (P = 00.238).

Conclusion

While study numbers are low, mean time to dislocation was significantly longer with dual mobility. Additional large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to fully elucidate the differences in outcomes amongst these three treatments.

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.

Outcomes of Dual Mobility Versus Fixed-Bearing Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) implants have received increasing interest in revision surgery due to their increased stability. The aim of this systematic review was to compare outcomes of DM versus conventional fixed-bearing (FB) implants in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases between January 2000 and 2023. Outcome measures included rerevision due to dislocation, rerevision for other causes, all-cause rerevision, total complication rate, and functional outcome measures. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies assessment tool was used to evaluate methodological quality and the risk of bias. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted, with an assessment of heterogeneity using the Chi-square and Higgins I2 tests. A further subgroup analysis was performed between DM implants and larger femoral head (> 36 mm) FB implants.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies met the final inclusion criteria, with an overall number of 5,004 rTHA hips included (2,108 DM and 2,896 FB). The DM implants had significantly lower odds of rerevision due to dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, P < 0.001), aseptic loosening (OR 0.54, P = 0.004), and all-cause rerevision (OR 0.55, P < 0.001) compared to FB implants. No statistically significant difference was seen in the odds of rerevision due to periprosthetic joint infection (OR 0.99, P = 0.94) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 0.59, P = 0.13) between the 2 groups. The total number of complications showed an odds benefit in favor of DM implants (OR 0.43, P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of rerevision due to dislocation (OR 0.69, P = 0.11) between DM and larger femoral head FB implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current literature, it appears DM implants are an effective modality for reducing dislocation following rTHA with lower complication rates compared to FB implants. However, further prospective randomized controlled trials with longer term follow-up are required.

Does-dual mobility still offer improved stability in smaller cup sizes? A computer modelling comparison of stability with 22-mm versus 28-mm inner heads in dual-mobility versus single-bearing constructs

PURPOSE

Dislocation remains 1 of the leading causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and there is clear evidence the dual-mobility (DM) is used more frequently to minimise this. But in smaller cups, whether the use of DM with smaller 22-mm heads imparts any increased stability compared to standard bearing is unknown; especially when those smaller cups now allow for large single-bearing (SB) heads.

METHODS

3 primary cup sizes (48 mm, 50 mm, 52 mm) were chosen a priori for modelling. Head sizes trialled for the standard bearing (SB) constructs group were 28-0 mm, 32-0 mm and 36-0 mm against neutral polyethylene liners. In the modular sub-hemispheric DM constructs the inner head sizes for the DM constructs were altered where appropriate (22-0 mm vs. 28-0 mm). Cup position, stem offset, and stem size were standardised.

RESULTS

Both DM constructs outperformed all SB constructs because of a statistically significant jump distance increase (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in range of motion (ROM) or jump distances between the 22-mm and 28-mm DM inner heads.The ROM angle before impingement between the DM (with 22-mm or 28-mm heads) and SB (with different head sizes where appropriate) showed no statistically significant difference. However, DM constructs presented significantly larger jump distances than SB constructs for both provocative dislocation tests across all 3 cup sizes.Of interest, for 50-mm and 52-mm cup sizes (for which this particular DM construct design can accommodate both 22-mm and 28-mm inner heads), there were no differences in ROM or jump distance between 22-mm versus 28-mm inner heads.

CONCLUSIONS

In this computer-modelling study, DM constructs are advantageous over SB constructs for improving jump distances in clinically provocative positions, but not range of motion angles. Inner head diameter of DM has no effect on stability.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements with dual-mobility bearings and acetabular component retention

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years).

Results

In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)).

Conclusion

In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications.

Dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty: Analysis of risk factors and preventive options

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful elective operations in orthopedic surgery for improving pain and functional disability in patients with end-stage joint disease. However, dislocation continues to be a troublesome complication after THA, as it is a leading cause of revision and is associated with substantial social, health, and economic costs. It is a relatively rare, usually early occurrence that depends on both the patients' characteristics and the surgical aspects. The most recent and important finding is the special attention to be given preoperatively to spinopelvic mobility, which is closely related to the incidence of dislocation. Consequently, clinical and radiographic assessment of the lumbar spine is mandatory to identify an altered pelvic tilt that could suggest a different positioning of the cup. Lumbar spinal fusion is currently considered a risk factor for dislocation and revision regardless of whether it is performed prior to or after THA. Surgical options for its treatment and prevention include the use of prostheses with large diameter of femoral head size, dual mobility constructs, constrained liners, and modular neck stems.

Challenges in Total Hip Arthroplasty with Prior Spinal Arthrodesis: A Comprehensive Review of Biomechanics, Complications, and Surgical Strategies

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has revolutionized patients' lives with hip osteoarthritis. However, the increasing prevalence of THA in individuals with prior lumbar arthrodesis (LA) poses unique challenges. This review delves into the biomechanical alterations, complications, and surgical strategies specific to this patient subset, highlighting the need for tailored preoperative assessments and planning. Due to altered pelvic and spinal biomechanics, patients with LA undergoing THA face a higher risk of dislocation and revision. The complex interplay between spinal and hip biomechanics underscores the need for meticulous preoperative planning. Comprehensive clinical examination and radiographic evaluation are vital for understanding patient-specific challenges. Various radiographic techniques, including computed tomography (CT)/X-ray matching and standing/seated studies, provide insights into postural changes affecting pelvic and spinal alignment. Complications following THA in patients with LA highlight the necessity for personalized surgical strategies. Careful consideration of implant selection, the surgical approach, and component positioning are essential to prevent complications. In summary, THA in patients with prior LA demands individualized preoperative assessments and planning. This approach is crucial to optimize outcomes and mitigate the heightened risks of complications, underlining the importance of tailored surgical strategies.

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.

A Meta-Analysis to Evaluate Implant Survival and Benefits of the Use of Dual Mobility Constructs in Total Hip Replacement Following Hip Fracture

Total hip replacement (THR) is commonly performed to treat hip fractures. Dual-mobility constructs (DMCs) are increasingly used for this indication. The aim of this study was to use evidence synthesis techniques to estimate net all-cause construct survival for THR with DMC performed for hip fracture. Additionally, we aimed to investigate and describe differences in all-cause construct survival (if present) between THRs performed with DMC (DMC-THR) or with a conventional bearing construct following hip fracture. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies (including joint registries), including DMC-THR for hip fracture which provided Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimates. The primary outcome was all-cause construct survival over time. The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173117). A total of 557 papers and 17 registry reports were identified. Six studies (four registry reports, one matched-pair cohort study utilising joint registry data, and one single-institution case series) met the inclusion criteria, including 17,370 DMC THRs and 167,377 conventional THRs. Five-year KM survival estimates (95% confidence intervals) were similar at 95.4% (94.9 to 95.8%) for DMC-THR and 96.2% (96.0 to 96.4%) for conventional THR. The relative risk of revision for DMC-THR at five years was 1.21 (1.05 to 1.41). These results suggest that DMC-THR has a lower all-cause survival than conventional THR following hip fracture. This analysis does not support the routine use of DMC-THR over conventional bearing THR.

Dual-Mobility Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Do Not Increase the Risk of Complication Compared to Conventional Articulations: A Matched Cohort Comparative Analysis

Background

A recent National Joint Registry report suggests a higher local complication risk for dual-mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to conventional articulation THA. This report may be subject to data heterogeneity with multiple confounders. Controlling for these factors by matching demographic characteristics may give different results. We aim to compare 2-year local complication rates between matched DM and conventional THAs in primary hip osteoarthritis.

Methods

Data were collected for consecutive primary THAs undertaken via a posterior approach. The conventional articulation and DM cohorts were matched 3:1 for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, body mass index, and operative time using a propensity score and nearest neighbor matching method. Outcome measures were 2-year local complication rates, reoperation rates, systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Demographic and outcome data were compared, and cumulative survival rates (%) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology with a 2-year local complication as the endpoint. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Four hundred twelve THAs were included: 309 conventional and 103 DM articulations. There were no statistically significant differences between DM and conventional articulation THAs for local complications (7 [6.8%] vs 23 [7.4%], P = .820), reoperations (3 [2.9%] vs 4 [1.3%], P = .374), systemic complications (3 [2.9%] vs 4 [1.3%], P = .374), or 90-day mortality (1 [1%] vs 2 [0.6%], P = 1.000). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar 2-year survival rates for conventional THAs compared to DM THAs (93.3% [standard error, 0.014] vs 91.9% [standard error, 0.031], P = .906).

Conclusions

This matched study shows that there is no difference in local complication rates between DM and conventional THA articulations.

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.

Safe Sex After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Using Computed Tomography-Based Robotics to Evaluate "At-Risk" Sexual Positions

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) can improve sexual satisfaction, but fear of dislocation can lead to sexual difficulties following this procedure. Previous kinematic research identified 4 sexual positions in women and 2 in men that were considered at risk for impingement. This study aimed to validate these findings using current robotic THA simulations.

METHODS

The 3-dimensional renderings from 12 patients who received computed tomography (CT)-based robotic THA were used to assess for prosthetic and/or bony impingement among 12 popular sexual positions. There were 9 cup orientations tested for each position (a combination of anteversion [0 °, 15 °, and 30 °] and inclination [40 °, 45 °, and 60 °]). The at-risk positions were tested again using the unique hip positions and cup orientations where previous geometric modeling data found impingement to occur.

RESULTS

Using mean hip positions, impingement occurred in at least 1 patient in 1 of the 12 positions for women (position 5) and 5 of the 12 positions for men (positions 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11). Among the at-risk positions, impingement occurred in none of the 2 at-risk women positions (0 of 17 cup orientations) and in both at-risk men positions (9 of 9 cup orientations for position 8 and 1 of 1 for position 11).

CONCLUSION

Recreating popular and at-risk sexual positions following THA with a CT-based robotics system yielded results that were inconsistent with previous geometric modeling data. Resolving these discrepancies is crucial for surgeons to provide accurate postoperative patient education. The CT-based robotic systems may provide necessary input to feasibly individualize such recommendations, but current limitations in CT-based robotics require continued attention and innovation.

The use of dual mobility acetabular cups in total hip replacement reduces dislocation rates in hip dysplasia patients

Total hip replacement arthroplasty (THA) in hip dysplasia patients has a higher dislocation rate than in patients with simple hip osteoarthritis due to anatomical deformation. Therefore, to reduce postoperative THA dislocation is the challenge for arthroplasty surgeons. From 2015 to 2020, 1525 patients underwent THA performed by two surgeons at a single institution. A total of 152 patients involving 172 THAs were included. The patients were classified into dual-mobility (DM) and fixed-bearing (FB) acetabular cup groups. The occurrence of postoperative dislocation and functional evaluation of the hip joint, was analyzed before and after surgery using the modified Harris hip score(mHHS). There was no difference in the preoperative demographics and radiographic parameters between the groups. The incidence of postoperative hip dislocation was significantly lower in the DM group (DM 0% vs. FB 9.0%) (P value = 0.003). The mHHS showed no difference before surgery and after surgery (DM 91.80 vs FB 92.03). Treating hip dysplasia patients with THA using a dual-mobility acetabular cup can reduce postoperative dislocations, and could be used for the better management of these patients.

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.

A Missed Diagnosis of Intraprosthetic Dislocation in a Dual-Mobility Bearing Following Closed Reduction

Dual-mobility bearings have been found to reduce the rate of dislocation following both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. Their unique design involves two articulating surfaces which increases construct stability but also leaves them susceptible to a unique complication known as intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD). We report the case of a 33-year-old female who sustained an IPD following closed reduction. Following a missed radiographic diagnosis, the patient experienced pain and mechanical symptoms secondary to her implant failure. Surgical removal of the dislodged liner with component revision was required. This case highlights several crucial steps in the management of patients with dislocated total hip arthroplasties including implant identification and careful review of postreduction radiographs. We also discuss several strategies to properly diagnose, manage, and avoid IPD.

Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Update on Navigation, Robotics, and Contemporary Advancements

While total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains effective for improvement of pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis, there remain areas of continued pursuit of excellence, including decreasing rates of dislocation, leg length discrepancy, implant loosening, and infection. This review article covers several bearing surfaces and articulations, computer-assisted navigation and robotic technology, and minimally invasive surgical approaches that have sought to improve such outcomes. Perhaps the most significant improvement to THA implant longevity has been the broad adoption of highly cross-linked polyethylene, with low wear rates. Similarly, navigation and robotic technology has proven to more reproducibly achieve intraoperative component positioning, which has demonstrated clinical benefit with decreased risk of dislocation in a number of studies. Given the projected increase in THA over the coming decades, continued investigation of effective incorporation of technology, soft tissue-sparing approaches, and durable implants is imperative to continued pursuit of improved outcomes in THA.

Survivorship of the dual-mobility construct in elective primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data

INTRODUCTION

Dislocation is a common complication associated with total hip replacement (THR). Dual-mobility constructs (DMC-THR) may be used in high-risk patients and have design features that may reduce the risk of dislocation. We aimed to report overall pooled estimates of all-cause construct survival for elective primary DMC-THR. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted dislocation rate, revision for instability, infection and fracture.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and National Joint Registry reports were systematically searched (CRD42020189664). Studies reporting revision (all-cause) survival estimates and confidence intervals by brand and construct including DMC bearings were included. A meta-analysis was performed weighting series by the standard error.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies reporting 39 case series were identified; nine (10,494 DMC-THR) were included. Fourteen series (23,020 DMC-THR) from five national registries were included. Pooled case series data for all-cause construct survival was 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-100) at 5 years, 95.7% (95% CI 94.9-96.5) at 10 years, 96.1% (95% CI 91.8-100) at 15 years and 77% (95% CI 74.4-82.0) at 20 years. Pooled joint registry data showed an all-cause construct survivorship of 97.8% (95% CI 97.3-98.4) at 5 years and 96.3% (95% CI 95.6-96.9) at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivorship of DMC-THR in primary THR is acceptable according to the national revision benchmark published by National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Single center evaluation of outcomes of modular dual mobility liners during revision total hip arthroplasty: A five-year follow-up

Introduction

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is at increased risk for postoperative instability when compared to primary cases, which has been mitigated to some extent with the introduction of dual mobility (DM) reconstructions. These constructs were designed to lower dislocation rates and to improve impingement-free range of motion. As a follow-up to our prior institutional study, we expanded on a cohort of DM reconstructions compared to non-DM constructs. We examined a modular dual mobility system in rTHA to measure loosening of the acetabular component, as well as revision and dislocation rates in comparison to an historical cohort of single articulation prostheses.Materials/Methods: This retrospective cohort study from a single center included 254 patients who underwent rTHA with a dual mobility liner by three fellowship-trained surgeons between January 1, 2014 and December 1, 2019. This was a follow-up to an historical cohort of revisions performed with a single articulation prosthesis (n = 120) from the same surgeons performed between January 1, 2011 and December 23, 2013. The inclusion criteria included consecutively performed rTHAs that had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. We excluded patients who had femoral revisions and head/liner revisions only. The average follow-up in the dual mobility cohort and the single articulation cohort was 5 years (range, 2-10 years) and 2.5 years (range, 1.5-4.3 years), respectively. The primary outcomes were dislocation, aseptic loosening, and re-revision rates. Secondary outcomes were radiographic analyses of cup migration and osteolysis.

Results

There were 4 out of 256 (1.6%) dislocations from the dual mobility cohort compared to 7 out of 120 (5.8%), P < 0.001 from the single articulation cohort. The rates of aseptic loosening were 3.2% (8 out of 254) and 4.2% (5 out of 120), P = 0.124, respectively, between the cohorts. The re-revision rate was 5.9% for the DM liners and 8.3% in the control cohort, P = 0.38. Radiographic analyses revealed no cup migration and osteolysis in any of the patients that had no dislocations.

Conclusion

The dual mobility articulations in rTHA demonstrated improved results in terms of lower dislocations rates when compared to a single articulation prostheses. Our center uses these articulations for revisions and surgeons should consider the use of these bearings when performing rTHA.

Evolution and New Generation of Dual Mobility Cups

Although total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered a successful procedure, hip dislocation remains the main cause of early failure. Dual mobility cups (DMCs) have been shown to significantly reduce the dislocation rate in both primary and revision THAs. During the past several decades, DMCs have evolved in design and fixation interface. There have been three generations of DMCs. This article addresses the rationale for a new cementless highly porous titanium DMC to improve component fixation and implant biocompatibility. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(5):e273-e280.].

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.

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.

Total Hip Arthroplasty: So Hip It Hurts

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become a standard surgical intervention for patients with hip joint disorders [...].

Do articular surfaces of dual mobility hips have more wear and friction? An in vitro investigation

INTRODUCTION

Larger head-to-neck ratio of dual mobility (DM) hip arthroplasties provide greater range of motion/less risk of dislocation, but raise concerns for high wear and friction. We measured in vitro, the wear rates of contemporary DM hips with highly-crosslinked Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHWMPE), where it came from, and their frictional torques.

METHODS

Hip simulators were used to compare the wear of DM to fixed-bearing (FB) designs of two different implants. Each of eight different configurations underwent millions of simulated walking cycle tests, some as full DM, some as FB controls, some DM with the outer-articulation deliberately immobilized, and some the inner. Wear and three-dimensional-frictional torques were measured and friction independent of size was deduced.

RESULTS

The DM hips produced lower wear and friction-torque than the FB hips. The DM Wear during walking gait comes mostly from the smaller inner articular surface. If the outer surface was immobilized, the wear and torque of the inner alone would be small, but the full DM (inner and outer free-to-move) wear and torque were smallest of all. Friction measurements expectedly showed larger hips having higher frictional torques, but the DM showed the lowest, again because its motion was mostly the smaller inner articulation; smaller than even a modern fixed-bearing hip.

CONCLUSION

The DM hips appear to combine the benefits of greater range of motion and less impingement of larger hips, with the lower wear and friction of smaller FB hips, with some benefits compromised if the outer or inner articulations are immobilized.

Dislocation and survival rate of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with high risk of instability

PURPOSE

Instability remains as an unsolved complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual mobility (DM) cups have decreased dislocation rate in rTHA; however, there are few clinical studies that evaluate the risk of dislocation after rTHA in patients with high risk of instability.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2019, 95 consecutive rTHA using a DM cup, in 93 patients with instability risk factors were retrospectively reviewed. Instability risk factors were defined as follows: deficient abductor mechanism (22.1%), previous dislocation (68.4%), Paprosky 3 acetabular bone defect (21.1%), neuromuscular disease (4.2%), lumbar spine arthrodesis (6.3%), and more than one previous surgery (33.6%). Mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 2.4 years. Clinical and radiographic parameters were reported. DM cup survival was determined using a Kaplan-Meier analysis with re-revision for any cause as the end-point. Surgical complications and re-dislocation rate was recorded.

RESULTS

Seven DM cups were re-revised; three due to aseptic loosening, three due to peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and one due to instability. At seven years follow-up, the survival rate of the DM cup using re-revision for any reason as the end-point was 82.4% (95% confidence interval, 66.4-98.4%). There were 12 (12.6%) complications: two (2.1%) dislocations, six (6.3%) PJI, four (4.2%) peri-prosthetic fractures.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest DM cups are effective reducing dislocation rate in rTHA in patients with a high risk of instability, without increasing early aseptic loosening and with a low rate of dislocation. Nevertheless, longer follow-up is needed to confirm implant stability and dislocation rates in the long term.

"Incidence of Instability Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Continues to Decline in the Medicare Population"

BACKGROUND

Instability has been the primary cause of failure following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) leading to revision hip surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine if instability rates have further declined following advances in primary THA including dual mobility articulations, direct anterior approaches, advanced technologies, and improved knowledge of the hip-spine relationships.

METHODS

Using the 5% Medicare Part B claims data from 1999 to 2019, we identified 81,573 patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis. Patients who experienced instability at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were identified. Multivariate cox regression analyses evaluated the effect of patient and procedure characteristics on the risk for instability.

RESULTS

Instability at 1 year following primary THA declined from approximately 4% in 2000 to 2.3% in 2010 and 1.6% in 2018. The leading cause of revision surgery was infection (18.6%), followed by peri-prosthetic fracture (14%), mechanical loosening (11.5%), and instability (9.4%). High risk groups for instability continue to include increased age, higher Charlson index, obesity, lumbar spine pathology, and neurocognitive disorders.

CONCLUSION

Instability is no longer the leading etiology of failure following primary THA with a decline of approximately 40% over the past decade. Infection, periprosthetic fracture, mechanical loosening, and then instability are now the leading causes of failure. Multiple factors may play a role in the decline of instability including increased use of dual mobility articulations, direct anterior approaches, improved knowledge of the hip-spine relationships, and use of advanced technologies.

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.

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.

Prevalence of groin pain after primary dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability remains a challenging problem following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual-mobility (DM) components are used with increasing frequency to mitigate this potential complication. As has been shown with larger metal-on-metal (MoM) THA, the larger size femoral head may pose an increased risk of groin pain. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of groin pain following primary DM THA compared to other THA constructs.

METHODS

We identified 190 primary THAs (183 patients) performed with DM components at a single academic institution from 2008 to 2017. We retrospectively reviewed standardised patient questionnaires and the electronic medical record to determine the prevalence of groin pain. DM patients were compared to historical controls of 39 MoM hip resurfacing, 26 large-head MoM THA, and 217 conventional THA. Mean age was 64 years, 58% were female, mean body mass index was 30 kg/m², and mean follow-up was 3.5 years (range 2-8 years).

RESULTS

The prevalence of groin pain in patients with DM components was 5%, similar to the prevalence reported by patients with conventional THA (7%). There was a decreased prevalence of groin pain in DM patients compared to hip resurfacing (18%) and MoM THA (15%). Among the 9 DM patients with groin pain, 1 was treated with iliopsoas injection, and 1 underwent radiofrequency ablation of the articular nerve.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents a relatively low prevalence of groin pain among primary DM THA patients. This is comparable with historical controls of conventional THA and decreased compared to hip resurfacing and large head MoM THA.

Dual Mobility Total Hip Replacements in Young Patients- A Systematic Review

Background

There is little consensus on outcomes of dual Mobility total hip replacement (DM-THR) in younger patients. We performed a systematic review to examine this.

Methods

A systematic review of all observational studies and randomised controlled trials of patients under 70 with primary DM-THR in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Collected data included demographics, revision, dislocation and infection rates and functional scores.

Results

Twelve papers studying 738 DM-THR in 664 patients were included. The mean patient age was 46.9 years (13.5-69.0), with 319 (48.0%) being female and 419 (52.0%) being male. After an average follow-up of 90.0 months (1-371 months), the revision rate was 12.7% (84 hips), 0 dislocations were reported but 2.5% (15 hips) underwent intra-prosthetic dislocation. 32.1% hip revisions were due to aseptic loosening.

Conclusion

Limited literature surrounding the use of DM-THR suggests favourable stability but higher revision rates than conventional THR.

Functional implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty and the role of robotic-arm assistance

INTRODUCTION

Accurate implant positioning, tailored to the phenotype and unique biomechanics of each patient is the single most important objective in achieving stability in THA and maximise range of motion. The spine-pelvis-hip construct functions as a single unit adapting to postural changes. It is widely accepted in the literature that no universaltarget exists and variations in spinopelvic mobility mandate adjustments to the surgical plan; thus bringing to the fore the concept of personalised, functional component positioning.

METHODS

This manuscript aims to outline the challenges posed by spinopelvic imbalance and present a reproducible, stepwise approach to achieve functional-component positioning. We also present the one-year functional outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures of a prospective cohort operated with this technique.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Robotic-arm assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty has facilitated enhanced planning based on the patient's phenotype and evidence suggests it results in more reproducible and accurate implant positioning. Preservation of offset, avoiding leg-length discrepancy, accurate restoration of the centre of rotation and accomplishing the combinedversion target are very important parameters in Total Hip Arthroplasty that affect post-operative implant longevity, patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Dual-Mobility Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) were introduced in France more than 40 years ago and are increasingly used not only in hip revision but also primary hip arthroplasty. Due to a simulated large-head articulation and increased jumping distance, DMCs can contribute to a high range of motion in the hip joint and reduce the risk of instability. Numerous studies have reported low dislocation rates and high survival rates in the mid-term follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term data, especially on primary hip replacement, remain limited, and the effect of recent designs and material innovations is still unclear. Therefore, primary DMCs are mainly proposed in patients at high risk for dislocation (i.e. pelvitrochanteric insufficiency, compromised spinopelvic mobility, neuromuscular disorders, obesity and femoral neck fractures). Based on a review of recently published studies referring to these indications, the current study discusses the advantages and disadvantages of DMCs.

Comparison of Premium Technology Utilization in Total Hip Arthroplasty Between Safety-net Hospitals and Non-safety-net Hospitals

INTRODUCTION

The objective of our study was to investigate the association of safety-net hospital (SNH) status with the use of premium technologies in total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American Joint Replacement Registry.

METHODS

Premium technology was defined as having one or more of the following three characteristics: ceramic femoral head, dual mobility (DM) bearing, or surgery conducted with robotic assistance (RA). Patients of all ages were included and subdivided into ceramic femoral head, DM, and RA cohorts. SNH status (based on disproportionate share data), patient demographics, geographical region, hospital size, and teaching affiliation were assessed. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to analyze any notable associations.

RESULTS

A total of 624,933 THAs between SNHs and non-SNHs were available for analysis. Based on the three different premium technology categories, there were 551,838 THAs for ceramic femoral head utilization analysis, 601,223 THAs for DM utilization analysis, and 199,250 THAs for RA utilization analysis. SNHs were associated with less use of DM and RA (odds ratio [OR] 0.53 P < 0.0001, 0.39 P < 0.0001, respectively). No difference was observed in ceramic femoral head utilization between SNHs and non-SNHs. Patient age was significantly associated with less utilization of all three premium THA technologies (ceramic: OR 0.43 P < 0.0001; DM: OR 0.93 P < 0.0001, RA: OR 0.89 P < 0.001). Teaching hospitals were significantly associated with increased utilization of premium THA technologies (ceramic: OR 1.23 P < 0.0001, DM: OR 1.62 P < 0.0001, RA: OR 5.33 P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Premium THA technologies are becoming increasingly used across the US healthcare system; however, that growth is not equal in hospitals with marginalized patient populations. The utilization of ceramic femoral heads is becoming increasingly common across healthcare systems suggesting that ceramic femoral heads may no longer be considered premium technology but rather standard THA care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Is the Revision Rate for Femoral Neck Fracture Lower for Total Hip Arthroplasty Than for Hemiarthroplasty?: A Comparison of Registry Data for Contemporary Surgical Options

BACKGROUND

When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options.

METHODS

Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered.

RESULTS

There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories.

CONCLUSIONS

When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

A neck-preserving short stem better reconstructs the centre of rotation than straight stems: a computed tomography-based cadaver study

INTRODUCTION

Short femoral hip stems with a metaphyseal anchoring concept have been designed to treat younger patients with good bone quality. The aim of this study was to reconstruct the centre of rotation and soft tissue balancing and preserve bone in the long-term perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen human femurs were randomised into three groups: (1) metaphyseal anchoring short stem, (2) shortened straight stem, (3) straight stem). Prior to the implantation of the hip stems, a computed tomography (CT) of the bones was performed and the femoral ante-torsion and ante-tilt was measured and compared to the results of the post-implantation CT. This could be calculated based on the 3D coordinates taken from the pre- and post-op CT scans, which were transformed into the same coordinate systems.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative caput-collum-diaphyseal (CCD) angle for the three groups was 126.87° ± 3.50° (Group 3: 129.64° ± 3.53°, Group 1: 123.76° ± 5.56°, Group 2: 127.53° ± 1.42°) and was consistent with published reports. The postoperative CCD angles with 126.85° ± 3.43° were within a very good reconstruction range for all three groups. The anterior offset comparison among these three groups showed significant difference in reconstruction. The smallest difference between the anatomical (preoperative) and postoperative condition was seen in Group 1 (1.47° ± 0.60°), followed by Group 2 (3.60° ± 0.23°) and Group 3 (8.00° ± 0.70°) groups. The horizontal offset showed no significant difference among the groups and was within the window of ± 5 mm.

CONCLUSION

In this cadaver study, we found that the metaphyseal anchoring, partially neck-preserving short hip stem best reconstructs the ante-torsion and the ante-tilt of the femoral neck. Therefore, it can be a useful stem in younger or active middle-aged patients.

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.

Similar Outcomes Achieved Between Anterior and Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Implants

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in high-risk patients; however, their utility in primary THA remains relatively unexplored. No previous reports have described whether surgical approach influences outcomes associated with DM implant systems. This study aims to compare patient reported outcomes and post-operative groin pain between patients undergoing anterior approach versus posterior approach following primary THA with DM implants.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary THA and received a DM implant between 2011-2021. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior approach). Primary outcomes included the presence of substantial postoperative groin pain as well as readmission and revision rates. Demographic differences were assessed using chi-square and independent sample t-tests. Outcomes were compared using multilinear and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Of the 495 patients identified, 55 (11%) underwent THA via the anterior approach and 440 (89%) via the posterior approach. Surgical time (100.24 vs. 109.42 minutes, p=0.070), length of stay (2.19vs.2.67 days,p=0.072), discharge disposition (p=0.151), and significant postoperative groin pain (1.8%vs.0.7%,p=0.966) did not statistically differ between the cohorts. 90-day readmission (9.1%vs.7.7%,p=0.823) and revision rate (0.0%vs.3.0%,p=0.993) did not significantly differ as well. Specifically, readmission (p=0.993) and revision (p=0.998) for instability did not significantly differ between the cohorts. We found no statistical difference in HOOS, JR (p=0.425), VR-12 PCS (p=0.718), and VR-12 MCS (p=0.257) delta score improvement from preoperative to 1-year follow-up between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Comparable outcomes following implantation of DM constructs may be achievable irrespective of the surgical approach employed. The incidence of iliopsoas injections for groin pain did not significantly differ between anterior and posterior approaches. Future investigation is needed to determine whether surgical approach influences long-term outcomes in patients receiving DM implants. Level of Evidence: III.

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.

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.

Influence of dual-mobility acetabular implants on revision and survivorship of cup and Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs in aseptic acetabular loosening

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility (DM) acetabular implants have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent postoperative instability, with excellent mid-term survivorship. However, few comparative studies assessed the long-term outcomes of DM implants used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular revision. The present study aimed to compare long-term survivorship, dislocation rates and clinical outcome between DM acetabular implants and conventional single-bearing (SB) implants when cemented in a reinforcement ring.

HYPOTHESIS

Dual-mobility implants are associated with equivalent survivorship and lower dislocation rates than SB implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study included 60 revision THAs for aseptic loosening using a Kerboull-type reinforcement ring, and finally included 2 groups of 23 patients with either DM or SB cemented acetabular implants after matching for age, gender, BMI and preoperative Harris hip score. Mean follow-up was 10 years (range, 6-14 years). Acetabular implant survivorship, dislocation rate and radiographic failure incidence (>5mm migration, progressive radiolucency, graft non-integration, reinforcement ring breakage) were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes used the Harris hip score, the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score and the Parker score.

RESULTS

Survivorship free of aseptic acetabular re-revision was 89% at 10 years, with no significant difference between DM and SB (91% and 86%, respectively; p=0.54). Single-bearing implants showed a hazard ratio for dislocation of 6.7 (95% CI, 1.5-29.6; p=0.01) compared to DM implants. There were no significant differences in radiologic failure (10-year survivorship 72% and 64%, respectively; p=0.88) or functional scores.

DISCUSSION

The present study confirmed the impact of dual-mobility implants in reducing long-term dislocation risk when used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular aseptic revision, with no increased risk of re-revision compared to conventional single-bearing implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative retrospective study.

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.

How to Prevent Aseptic Loosening in Cementless Arthroplasty: A Review

Aseptic loosening is the main late postoperative complication of cementless total hip arthroplasties (THAs), leading to pain and functional impairment. This article aims to update the orthopedic surgeon on the various methods by which the aseptic loosening rate can be reduced. We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed database for hip aseptic loosening. We included meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, reviews, and systematic reviews in the last 10 years, which provided information on techniques that can prevent aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty. From a total of 3205 articles identified, 69 articles (2%) met the inclusion criteria, leading to a total of 36 recommendations. A lot of research has been conducted in terms of septic loosening in the last decade. Currently, we have various techniques by which we can reduce the rate of aseptic loosening. Nevertheless, further randomized clinical trials are needed to expand the recommendations for aseptic loosening prevention.

Implant survival of 662 dual-mobility cups and 727 constrained liners in primary THA: small femoral head size increases the cumulative incidence of revision

Background and purpose - In total hip arthroplasty (THA), the risk for dislocation can be reduced using either dual-mobility cups (DMCs) or constrained liners (CLs). There are few studies comparing these concepts in primary THA. Therefore, we compared the cumulative incidence of revision in primary THA patients treated with DMC or CL with varying head sizes with conventional THA patients as reference group.Patients and methods - We performed a cohort study based on the Finnish arthroplasty register, comparing DMCs and CLs operated over the period 2000-2017. DMCs were divided into 2 groups based on the implant design: "DMC Trident" group (n = 399) and "DMC Others" group (n = 263). CLs were divided based on the femoral head size: "CL 36 mm" group (n = 425) and "CL < 36 mm" group (n = 302). All conventional primary THAs operated on in 2000-2017 with 28-36 mm femoral head were included as control group ("Conventional THA" group, n = 102,276). Implant survival was calculated by the corresponding cumulative incidence function with revision as the endpoint and death as competing event. Also, the prevalence of different reasons for revision was compared.Results - The 6-year cumulative incidence function estimates for the first revision were 6.9% (95% CI 4.0-9.7) for DMC Trident, 5.0% (CI 1.5-8.5) for DMC Others, 13% (CI 9.3-17) for CL < 36 mm, 6.3% (3.7-8.9) for CL 36 mm, and 4.7% (CI 4.5-4.8) for control group (conventional THA). The prevalence of dislocation revision was high (5.0%, CI 2.9-8.2) in the CL < 36 mm group compared with other groups.Interpretation - The DMC and CL 36 mm groups had promising mid-term survival rates, comparable to those of primary conventional THA group. The revision rate of CLs with < 36 mm head was high, mostly due to high prevalence of dislocation revisions. Therefore, CLs with 36 mm femoral head should be preferred over smaller ones.

Cementation of a dual mobility cup in a well-fixed acetabular component- a reliable option in revision total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

The "cup-in-cup" technique allows for revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) when the cementless cup is well fixed. Furthermore, it can be used for liner wear or mechanical failure where liner replacement may be impossible or impractical. Recently, the "cup-in-cup" technique in combination with dual mobility cups (DMC) has drawn increased attention. Our aim was to report on the clinical and radiographic outcomes following this surgery.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, 33 patients treated with the DMC- "cup in cup" technique were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen patients had died while 19 were available for the final follow-up (FU), of which 15 underwent both a radiograph and a FU visit, 2 underwent a radiograph only and 2 underwent a telephone interview only. Patient-related outcome measures included the HHS and the WOMAC. Radiographs were assessed for implant loosening and positioning. Primary endpoint was revision of any cause and secondary endpoint was loosening of the DMC at the latest FU. The survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The mean age at surgery was 78.6 ± 7.1 (63-93) years and the mean surgery duration was 124.4 ± 52.0 (60-245) minutes. Recurrent dislocation (42.4%), periprosthetic fracture (39.4%) and polyethylene wear (6.1%) were the most frequent reasons for surgery. The mean FU duration (n = 19) was 28.5 ± 17.3 (3-64) months. The mean HHS score at FU was 59.4 ± 22.2 (29-91) and the mean WOMAC score was 59.7 ± 25.6 (15.6-93.8). Two cups were revised due to instability and one revision was performed due to periprosthetic joint infection, accounting for an overall cup survival rate of 86.8% after a mean FU of 22.9 ± 18.0 (1.5-64.6) months. The survival rate free of loosening was 90.9% after a mean FU of 22.3 ± 18.5 (1.5-64.7) months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the cementation of a DMC in a well-fixed cup is a promising short- to mid-term treatment addressing THA instability especially in elderly and frail patients, who benefit from a reduced operation time. Proper cementation technique, adequate cup positioning as well as selection of a sufficiently large DMC are crucial for treatment success. Longer FUs will be needed in the future in order to further prove the benefit of this technique.

Acetabular Lip Augmentation Devices for the Unstable Total Hip Replacement-A Systematic Review

Background

The optimal management strategy for instability afte total hip arthroplasty remains unclear. Acetabular lip augmentation devices may offer an operative solution for recurrent instability. This systematic review reports the clinical outcomes of acetabular lip augmentation devices in comparison to other treatment options.

Methods

A literature search strategy was performed of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on September 19, 2020, for all studies reporting outcomes of acetabular lip augmentation devices for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Non-English language articles were excluded. Clinical and survivorship data were collated and analyzed.

Results

Thirteen studies describing acetabular augmentation were included for analysis. A total of 644 hips in 636 patients were augmented with a mean age of 75 years (39 to 103). Five different augmentation devices were used. The posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD, DePuy) was the most used (406 hips). Overall, acetabular lip augmentation devices had a 10% postoperative dislocation rate at a mean follow-up of 49 months (0.2 to 132). The PLAD had a 3.9% subsequent dislocation rate with a mean follow-up of 51 months (0.2 to 132). Only one study compared the PLAD to a dual-mobility cup, which demonstrated shorter operative times with the PLAD but higher rates of dislocation and revision surgery.

Conclusion

The quality of literature on lip acetabular augmentation devices is poor. In these studies, the postoperative dislocation rate after lip acetabular augmentation was relatively high. The PLAD (DePuy) has the most evidence and may offer a therapeutic option for recurrent instability, in very specific clinical situations.

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.

Capsular Management in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The direct anterior approach (DAA) is a popular approach to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Unlike the posterior approach, the importance of anterior capsular management is unknown. This randomized controlled trial compares capsular repair versus capsulectomy.

METHODS

This single-surgeon, single-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial occurred between 2013 and 2016. Patients undergoing unilateral, primary THA for osteoarthritis consented to undergo blinded, simple randomization to anterior capsulotomy with repair or anterior capsulectomy. Primary outcome measures included hip range of motion, hip flexion strength, and pain with seated hip flexion. Secondary outcome measures included surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. Data were prospectively collected intraoperatively, six weeks, six months, an average of over 5 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were ultimately enrolled in the trial; 50 received capsulectomy and 48 received capsulotomy. No significant differences were seen in preoperative demographics or in primary or secondary outcomes during this study. No difference was seen in pain at final follow-up at average > 5 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that capsular management in DAA THA does not affect postoperative pain or range of motion. The anterior capsule's role in prosthetic stability after DAA THA remains uncertain, but it does not currently appear that repair provides benefit and may lead to increased surgical time and blood loss. As such, capsular management in DAA THA is at surgeon discretion.

Is there a problem with modular dual mobility acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up?

AIMS

Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years.

METHODS

Using the database of a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome.

RESULTS

The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner.

CONCLUSION

When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66-72.