Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Efficient Strategy to Decrease Dislocation Risk

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.

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.

Exuberant Rice Body Formation Associated with Adverse Local Tissue Reaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

CASE

A 65-year-old man with osteoarthritis of the hip developed a soft-tissue mass of the inferior gluteal region 3 years after metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Clinical and imaging findings suggested an adverse local tissue reaction. Intraoperatively, nearly 1 liter of intra-articular fibrinous loose bodies (rice bodies) was removed, and histology showed features of an adaptive immune response. The patient had no evidence of an autoimmune disease or mycobacterial infection.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of florid rice bodies associated with a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty and adverse local tissue reaction.

Dislocation After Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip

BACKGROUND

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a common treatment option for hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, noninfectious outcomes of DAIR such as instability are not well reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors for hip dislocation post-DAIR for PJI of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified all patients who underwent DAIR of a primary or revision THA over a 20-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up. A total of 151 patients met inclusion criteria, 19.9% of whom had a post-DAIR dislocation. Demographic and intraoperative variables were obtained. Patients who had modular components exchanged during DAIR to those with increased offset, increased "jump distance", or a more stable acetabular liner were defined as patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability." Predictors of hip dislocation post-DAIR were inserted into a multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Post-DAIR dislocation rates were 16.3% in primary THAs and 25.4% in revision THAs. In patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability" during hip DAIR, there was at least an 11-fold reduction (1/odds ratio (OR), 0.09) in dislocation risk compared to patients who had no components altered during modular component exchange during hip DAIR (OR, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.44; P < .001), while a 13-fold increased dislocation risk was seen in patients with a history of neuromuscular disease (OR, 13.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-104.09; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

During DAIR of hip PJI, surgeons should consider prophylactically exchanging components to increase stability even if components appear stable intraoperatively.

No dislocation and low complication rate for a modern dual mobility cup with pre-impacted femoral head in primary hip replacement: A consecutive series of 175 hips at minimum 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Despite its excellent results in preventing dislocation, the dual mobility cup (DMC) is still struggling to be adopted by some teams due to premature wear and loosening reported on first-generation implants. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the mid-term survivorship of a modern DMC with a pre-impacted head and the radio-clinical results at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study performed on patients who had a primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in 2016. The cup was a third-generation DMC with a pre-impacted femoral head. Clinical (harris hip score (HHS)) and radiological (cup abduction, anteversion, overhang, and radiolucent lines) results were recorded, as well as complications, particularly dislocations and survivorship. A minimum of five years of follow-ups was required.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five hips (167 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Five hips (2.9%, 5/175) were lost to follow-up and excluded from the postoperative analysis. The mean follow-up period was 70 ± 2.9 months [63.6-76.5]. Three cups needed revision surgery (1.8%, 3/170): one for septic loosening, and two for chronic infection. At 77 months, the global survival probability was 98.2% ± 1, and the survival probability excluding septic aetiology was 100%. There was a significant improvement in the HHS from pre-operatively (48.3 ± 6.0 [14.0-70.0]) to post-operatively (96 ± 4.5 [50-100]) (p < 0.0001). There were no postoperative dislocations recorded, nor any iliopsoas-impingement or symptomatic cam-effect.

DISCUSSION

This study showed excellent survival and good radiological and clinical results of this dual mobility cup at a mid-term follow-up. None of the patients had dislocation or any specific complication feared with dual mobility cups.

Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty: Should It Be Revised Using Dual Mobility Implants? A Retrospective Analysis from the R.I.P.O. Registry

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33-96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48-92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.

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

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

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants

BACKGROUND

The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA.

METHODS

Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants.

RESULTS

For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants.

CONCLUSION

Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Midterm Outcomes After Reconstruction of Superolateral Acetabular Defects Using Flying Buttress Porous Tantalum Augments During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Porous tantalum augments are versatile tools in reconstructing complex acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study examines the clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration at two to 17-year follow-up in the largest cohort to-date in the literature.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive revision THAs involving the use of flying buttress augments between 2003 and 2018. The mean patient age and follow-up duration were 63.9 ± 11.6 years (range, 35-87) and 8 years (range, 2-17), respectively. The Oxford hip score was used to assess clinical outcome. The modified Moore classification was used to assess acetabular augment and shell osseointegration. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess implant survivorship.

RESULTS

The mean Oxford hip score improved from 15.9 ± 6.2 preoperatively to 35.0 ± 6.5 at a mean follow-up of eight years (P < .0001). Radiographic assessment using the modified Moore classification demonstrated five signs of osseointegration in 49 hips (83.1%), four signs in six hips (10.2%), three signs in one hip (1.7%), and one sign in one hip (1.7%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated ten-year survivorship of 88.9% (95% CI 74.4-95.4) with all-cause revision as end point and 94.3% (95% CI 83.1-98.2) with revision for acetabular aseptic loosening as end point.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of superolateral acetabular defects during revision THA using porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration provides excellent implant survivorship and favorable clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV.

Spine Fusions, Yoga Instructors, and Hip Fractures: The Role of Dual Mobility in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased use of dual mobility (DM) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), debate exists regarding the indications for its use. No specific algorithm exists to guide this decision-making process. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarize the currently available literature regarding the use of DM in primary THA and provide evidence-based guidelines based on specific patient populations and risk factors for instability.

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature for studies evaluating risk factors for dislocation in primary THA, as well as the clinical use and results of DM in primary THA. Based on the strength of the literature, we discuss the use of DM in specific patient populations. We provide a decision-making algorithm to determine whether a patient may be indicated for DM in primary THA.

RESULTS

Surgeons should consider preoperative patient demographics, risk factors for instability (eg, significant hip-spine issues), type of procedure to be performed (eg, conversion arthroplasty), and indications for surgery (eg, THA for femoral neck fracture). Based on this algorithmic assessment, DM may be warranted in the primary THA setting if a patient's combined risk reaches an established threshold based on the literature.

CONCLUSION

This evidence-based algorithm may help guide current practice in the use of DM in primary THA. We advocate the continued judicious use of DM in hip arthroplasty. Longer term studies are needed in order to evaluate the durability of DM, as well as any complications related to the DM articulation.

Dual mobility cup in hip arthroplasty: an in-depth analysis of joint registries

Although total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown successful results, instability remains a major complication. In recent years, dual mobility cups (DMC) have gained interest among clinicians thanks to its low rate of dislocation and good clinical results. The main aim of this work was to describe the accuracy of data on DMC from national and regional joint registries (JRs) and the available worldwide literature. We identified topics on DMC among JRs to propose a new harmonized and standardized section for DMC with the aim to understand its surveillance over the time. We extracted survival and implant data for a separate analysis. After performing a critical exclusion process, nine joint registries were considered eligible and included for final synthesis; these were the results from the available worldwide data from Joints Registries (JRs). In our study, eight analysed JRs reported a slight increase in DMC use in the last decade. In all the JRs evaluated and the available articles, dislocation remains one of the main reasons for revision and re-revision in hip arthroplasties. DMC is considered a valid construct increasingly used worldwide in primary and revision THA with the primary aim of reducing dislocation rates. Annual reports from JRs collect heterogeneous and low-quality information about outcomes and surveillance of DMC, creating a burden for clinicians to extract comparable data from different JR. Longer follow-up and a systematic registering of DMCs with international registry harmonization are needed to monitor DMC outcomes.

Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aims of this meta-analysis were to: (1) validate the outcome of modern dual mobility (DM) designs in patients who had undergone primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures and (2) to identify factors that affect the outcome.

Methods

We searched for studies that assessed the outcome of modern DM-THA in primary and revision procedures that were conducted between January, 2000 to August, 2020 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews and Embase. The pooled incidence of the most common failure modes and patient reported outcomes were evaluated in patients who have received: (1) primary THA, (2) revision THA for all causes or (3) for recurrent dislocation. A meta-regression analysis was performed for each parameter to determine the association with the outcome. The study design of each study was assessed for potential bias and flaws by using the quality assessment tool for case series studies.

Results

A total of 119 studies (N= 30016 DM-THAs) were included for analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 47.3 months. The overall implant failure rate was 4.2% (primary: 2.3%, revision for all causes: 5.5%, recurrent dislocation: 6.0%). The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (primary: 0.9%, revision for all causes: 2.2%, recurrent dislocation: 2.4%), septic loosening (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes: 2.3%, recurrent dislocation: 2.5%), extra-articular dislocation (primary:0.6%, revision for all causes:1.3%, recurrent dislocation:2.5%), intra-prosthetic dislocation (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes:1.0%, recurrent dislocation:1.6%) and periprosthetic fracture (primary:0.9%, revision for all causes:0.9%, recurrent dislocation:1.3%). The multi-regression analysis identified younger age (β=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 – -0.02) and female patients (β=3.34, 95% CI 0.91–5.78) were correlated with higher implant failure rate. Age, gender, posterolateral approach and body mass index (BMI) were not risk factors for extra-articular or intra-prosthetic dislocation in this cohort. The overall Harris hip score and Merle d’Aubigné score were 84.87 and 16.36, respectively. Level of evidence of this meta-analysis was IV.

Conclusion

Modern dual-mobility designs provide satisfactory mid-term implant survival and clinical performance. Younger age and female patients might impact the outcome after DM-THA. Future research directions should focus on, (1) long-term outcome of modern dual-mobility design, including specific concerns such as intra-prosthetic dislocation and elevated metal ion, and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis of dual-mobility implant as an alternative to conventional THA for patients who are at high risk of dislocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.

Risk Factors for Dislocation and Re-revision After First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty due to Recurrent Dislocation - A Study From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND

Persistent instability after hip revision is a serious problem. Our aim was to analyze surgical and patient-related risk factors for both a new dislocation and re-revision after first-time hip revision due to dislocation.

METHODS

We included patients with a primary THA due to osteoarthritis and a first-time revision due to dislocation registered in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) from 1996 to 2016. We identified dislocations in the Danish National Patient Register and re-revisions in the DHR. Risk factors were analyzed by a multivariable regression analysis adjusting for the competing risk of death. Results are presented as subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR).

RESULTS

We identified 1678 first-time revisions due to dislocation. Of these, 22.4% had a new dislocation. 19.8% were re-revised for any reason. With new dislocations treated by closed reduction as the endpoint, the sHR was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27-0.48) for those who had a constrained liner (CL) during revision and 0.21 (0.08-0.58) for dual mobility cups (DMC), thereby lowering the risk of dislocation compared to regular liners. Changing only the head/liner increased the risk of dislocation (sHR = 2.65; 2.05-3.42) compared to full cup revisions. The protective effect of CLs and DMCs on dislocations vanished when re-revisions became the endpoint. The head/liner exchange was still found inferior compared to cup revision (sHR = 1.73; 1.34-2.23).

CONCLUSION

Patients revised with DMCs and CLs were associated with a lower risk of dislocation after a first-time revision but not re-revision, whereas only changing the head/liner was associated with a higher risk of dislocation and re-revision of any cause compared to cup revision.

Dual mobility for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis

INTRODUCTION

Revision THA (R-THA) is thought to have a higher complication rate if compared to primary THA. Dual Mobility (DM) implants have been designed aiming for achieving greater stability, with good clinical results. However, scarce material can be found about the real improvements provided by this type of implant compared to traditional implant in Revisions of Total Hip Arthroplasties.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies were performed in December 2019. This was in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our primary outcome measure was overall survivorship and dislocation rate, either treated with a conservative method or requiring surgery.

RESULTS

Regarding the overall implant survival, we found a slight significant risk ratio, with a statistically meaningful difference between the two groups in questions in favour of the DM implant. A statistically significant difference in favour of the DM group turned out considering only the Dislocation rate Risk ratio and the aseptic loosening risk as well. No statistical difference was found between the two groups about the risk ratio of infection.

DISCUSSION

A steady increase of evidence is demonstrating the efficacy of using a DM cup system in THA revisions with low dislocation rates, but currently there is no study in the literature that demonstrates with statistically significant evidence. The main finding of the present study is that implant's Survivor and prevention of dislocation at medium follow-up showed better results with a DM if compared to a fixed-bearing cup, for Revision THA.

Metal ion levels with use of modular dual mobility constructs: Can the evidence guide us on clinical use?

Introduction

Dual mobility (DM) use in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased, particularly for prevention and management of instability. However, a modular interface raises concern for metal ion generation. The purpose of this study was to determine the 1) serum cobalt and chromium levels; 2) prevalence of ion levels >1 mcg/L; and 3) effect of femoral head material on ion levels following THA using modular DM bearings.

Methods

We performed a systematic review (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane databases) for articles relating to metal ion levels and modular DM (MDM) THA. Eight studies (290 patients) met the inclusion criteria. We recorded post-operative ion levels at a minimum of 12 months, and compared levels with ceramic (n = 125) and metal femoral heads (n = 165). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to poor study quality and heterogeneity.

Results

At average follow-up of 30.4 months, mean cobalt level was 0.71 mcg/L, and mean chromium level was 0.66 mcg/L [22 patients (8%) had elevated ion levels above 1 mcg/L]. When compared to MDM with a ceramic head, metal head use had higher cobalt (1.26 vs. 0.42 mcg/L) and chromium levels (1.23 vs. 0.46 mcg/L). MDM with a metal head was 1.30 times more likely to have elevated ion levels >1 mcg/L. There was no effect of ion levels on outcome scores.

Conclusions

Measurable elevations of serum cobalt and chromium levels are present in patients with well-functioning MDM THAs. The impact and contributions of the additional metal liner interface are still unclear. The use of a ceramic head appears to mitigate ion release, while reducing other mechanisms of metallosis like taper corrosion. Higher quality studies are necessary to understand whether MDM bearings pose long term issues. Until then, the judicious use of MDM articulations is recommended.

Adverse Local Tissue Reaction due to Acetabular Corrosion in Modular Dual-Mobility Constructs

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been reported to reduce dislocation rates, especially in high-risk patients, and are being rapidly adopted in primary and revision THAs. However, this technology introduces additional interfaces that have the potential to result in unforeseen complications. We present a series of 3 patients with mechanically assisted crevice corrosion at the acetabular component-metal dual-mobility liner interface. Consequently, we urge judicious use and close clinical observation of this new, effective technology in THA.

The Patient With Chronic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocations: A Case Series of Five Patients Who Underwent Revision THA Using Polypropylene Mesh for Capsular Reconstruction

We report a case series of 5 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a polypropylene mesh for capsular reconstruction for chronic THA instability. The average follow-up is 16.6 months (range, 9-20 months). There were no postoperative dislocations in our series. Three patients had previous infections with two-stage revisions before final revision surgery and were infection free at their most recent follow-up. One patient developed a prosthetic joint infection 2 months postoperatively. The use of a polypropylene mesh appears to be another tool that surgeons can use when dealing with the difficult dilemma on how to treat the patient with chronic THA instability and severe abductor and capsular tissue loss.

Dual-mobility cups could yield lesser infections than conventional cups: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility cups (DMC) are gaining popularity mainly for their reduced rate of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Currently, indication for DMC use extends beyond patients with high risk of dislocation or revision THA cases. Many authors reported DMC outcomes in primary THA for all aetiologies. However, some reports claimed that the use of DMC is accompanied with higher rates of infection compared with conventional cups (CC) in both primary and revision THA.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the use of DMC generate higher rates of infection when compared with conventional cups?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to look for significant difference in the rate of post-operative infection between DMC cups and conventional cups.

METHODOLOGY

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched since inception. Only studies with comparative design reporting the outcome infection rate were included.

RESULTS

Seventeen retrospective comparative studies were located comprising 248,541 patients: 16,020 in the DMC group and 232,521 in the CC group. The mean follow-up period was 37.5 ± 42 and 50.2 ± 48.7 months for the DMC and CC groups, respectively. The meta-analytical results indicated the following: (a) significantly lesser infections following DMC compared with CC in revision THA (odds ratio (OR) = 0.75 (95% CI = 0.653 to 0.874, P = 0.0002, I² = 25%); (b) for primary THA and for large-sampled registries, significance was found using only the fixed-effects model estimate; and (c) no significant difference was found for the subgroup of cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

Our results clearly refute the claim that DMC would yield higher rates of infection. On the contrary, the findings demonstrated that the use of DMC reduces the risk of post-operative infection in revision THA and a similar lower infection trend for primary THA when compared with the standard cups.

Cementation of a Dual Mobility Cup Into an Existing Well-Fixed Metal Shell: A Reliable Option to Manage Wear-Related Recurrent Dislocation in Patients With High Surgical Risk

BACKGROUND

During revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), the "double-socket" technique has been proposed as a straightforward solution in order to reduce the overall perioperative morbidity in patients with high surgical risk. However, the option of cementing a dual mobility cup into an existing well-fixed metal shell was sparsely reported. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the outcome of a "double-socket" technique performed with a cemented dual mobility cup in revision THA for late instability.

METHODS

Twenty-eight revision THAs (28 patients) were performed for wear-related recurrent dislocation using a "double-socket" technique with a cemented dual mobility cup and retrospectively reviewed. The age at revision averaged 82 years (range 74-93). According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, 12 patients (43%) were ASA II and 16 patients (57%) were ASA III before revision.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 2-5), the mean preoperative to postoperative functional outcome improved significantly (P < .01). The mean operative time was 107 minutes (range 75-140). The mean intraoperative bleeding was 200 mL (range 110-420). No postoperative complication, reoperation, or re-revision was reported. Importantly, no dislocation, dissociation of the cemented dual mobility cup construct, or aseptic loosening of the retained metal shell was observed.

CONCLUSION

The "double-socket" technique with a dual mobility cup cemented into an existing well-fixed and well-positioned metal shell ensured a straightforward and blood-sparing revision technique that was efficient to restore stability and provide a secure acetabular construct in frail patients with high surgical risk and/or older than their natural life expectancy.

Mid-term results of revision surgery using double-trabecular metal cups alone or combined with impaction bone grafting for complex acetabular defects

BACKGROUND

Revision surgery for complex acetabular defects is still technically challenging. In this study, we discussed and compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision surgery between two methods using double-trabecular metal (TM) cups alone or combined with impacting bone grafting (IBG).

METHODS

The records of 18 patients (18 hips) who underwent revision surgery using double-trabecular metal (double-TM) cups between 2008 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients were diagnosed with Paprosky III acetabular defects. The acetabular defects were reconstructed by double-TM cups alone or in combination with IBG. We used the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Pelvis plain X-ray was used to assess hip center of rotation (COR), abduction angle and anteversion angle of acetabular cup, and incorporation of the bone graft to host bone.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.0 (IQR 56.0 to 65.8) months. No patients underwent re-revision for loosening or any other reasons. Complications included 3 patients (16.7%) with early dislocation and 3 patients (16.7%) with delayed wound healing. The average mHHS and UCLA preoperatively were 44.1 ± 4.0 (range 35 to 50) and 2.6 ± 0.7 (range 2 to 4), respectively and at the last follow-up were 73.7 ± 4.2 (range 68 to 85) and 7.3 ± 0.5 (range 7 to 8), respectively. The mean SF-36 scores at the last follow-up were improved significantly than preoperative scores, especially in bodily pain category (P < 0.05). The average limb-length discrepancy (LLD) decreased significantly from 24.2 ± 2.6 (range 20 to 32) mm preoperatively to 5.8 ± 1.8 (range 3 to 9) mm at the last follow-up, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between two methods at the last follow-up in terms of mHHS, UCLA, SF-36, LLD, and hip COR (P > 0.05). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated bone graft incorporation in all hips in the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Defect reconstruction using double-TM cups alone or combined with IBG are practical and reliable treatment options for Paprosky III acetabular defects without pelvic discontinuity. Nevertheless, high postoperative complication rate, especially in terms of dislocation, remains a challenge.

Early low complication rate of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach

Introduction: Ceramic-on-ceramic couplings are an alternative bearing surface to reduce the problems related to polyethylene wear and debris. However, ceramic articulations have their own risk of unique complications: fracture, squeaking, or dislocation. Few studies have assessed the outcomes of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasties (THA) by direct anterior approach (DAA). The aim was to evaluate the early complications and revision rate of ceramic-on-ceramic THA by DAA. Material: A retrospective single-center study of 116 consecutive THAs was performed by DAA (106 patients) with ceramic-on-ceramic bearing from January 2015 to February 2018 with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. No patients were lost to follow-up. The mean age was of 55.3 years ± 11.3. The same cementless acetabular shell with a Biolox Delta ceramic insert and head were used. The complication and revision rates were collected at the last follow-up. The positioning of the acetabular implant was assessed on standard radiographs. Postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed by the Harris Hip Score. Results: At a mean follow-up of 31.9 months ± 5.5, no THA was revised. Five patients had late complications: 3 squeaking (2.6%) and 2 psoas impingements (1.7%) and were managed conservatively. All patients had satisfactory bony ingrowth of acetabular component, with no radiolucent lines and no osteolysis. Eight patients (6.9%) had an anterior overhang of the cup. The mean overhang for these patients was 4.1 mm. 111 hips (96%) were perceived as forgotten or having no limitations. Conclusion: This ceramic-on-ceramic coupling and shell by DAA produced excellent clinical outcomes and implant survival rate at a minimum two-year follow-up study. No serious complication was observed during the follow-up.

Postero-posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty

Introduction

Evolving surgical techniques in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have sought to make the surgical procedures safer. This requires having highly reproducible incision landmarks and simplifying the procedures. The postero-posterolateral approach, a very posterior incision in the hip, meets those requirements. However, this has not helped to reduce the post-operative dislocation rate. The aim of this study was to assess the relevance of combining the postero-posterolateral approach and next-generation dual mobility cups (DMC) in terms of dislocation risk.

Materials and methods

One hundred and fifty-eight THA were performed consecutively using the postero-posterolateral approach on 150 patients, by a single surgeon, over a 49-month period (November 2010 to December 2014). All acetabular implants were impacted.

Results

Average length of the incision was 7 cm (6 to 9 cm). Mean duration of the surgical procedure was 75 minutes (40 to 100). Mean blood loss was estimated at 210 cc (25 to 410 cc). All patients could walk with assistance the day before transferring to a rehabilitation centre. There was one posterior dislocation (0.63%), without recurrence.

Conclusion

The straightforwardness and reproducibility of the anatomical landmarks used for the postero-posterolateral approach, added to the stability of the dual mobility cup, result in a safe combination in the therapeutic THA arsenal.