Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision-Is It Safe?

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.

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing at 25 years

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon's consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years.

Methods

The study extends the reporting on the first consecutive 144 resurfacing procedures in 130 patients for all indications. All operations were undertaken between August 1997 and May 1998. The mean age at operation was 52.1 years (SD 9.93; 17 to 76), and included 37 female patients (28.5%). Failure was defined as revision of either component for any reason. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Routine follow-up with serum metal ion levels, radiographs, and Oxford Hip Scores (OHSs) was undertaken.

Results

Overall implant survival was 83.50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.90) at 25 years, and the number at risk was 79. Survival in male patients at 25 years was 89.5% (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96) compared to 66.9% for female patients (95% CI 0.51 to 0.83). Ten additional failures occurred in the period of ten to 25 years. These involved an adverse reaction to metal debris in four patients, a periprosthetic femoral neck fracture affecting five patients, and aseptic loosening in one patient. The median chromium levels were 49.50 nmol/l (interquartile range (IQR) 34 to 70), and the median cobalt serum levels were 42 nmol/l (IQR 24.50 to 71.25). The median OHS at last follow-up was 35 (IQR 10 to 48). During the 25-year study period, 29 patients died. Patient survival at 25 years was 75.10% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that MoM hip resurfacing using the BHR provides a durable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly in younger male patients with osteoarthritis wishing to maintain a high level of function. These results compare favourably to the best results for THAs.

The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings

PURPOSE

Revision of failed large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure particularly to reconstruct acetabular bone defect due to osteolysis and to achieve hip stability due to soft tissue damages, both potentially caused by adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of dual mobility cup (DMC) constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with a special attention to the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 57 patients (64 THAs, 41 men, mean age = 65 ± 10 years) underwent revision for MoM THA with the use of DMC were prospectively included in our total joint registry. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years. The causes for revision were adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in 49 THAs (76%), painful hip with elevated blood cobalt-chromium ions in seven (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight (13%). The revision was complete in 22 THAs (34%) and acetabular only in 42 (66%). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-revisions were evaluated at most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up of six ± 1.5 years, the pre- to postoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 74 ± 19 to 92 ± 4 (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 11 cases (17%): five dislocations (8%), three periprosthetic infections (5%), two aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3%), and two periprosthetic fractures (3%). Re-revision was required in six cases (9%).

CONCLUSION

The use of DMC is a reliable option to prevent instability and ensure a stable acetabular reconstruction in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings. However, dislocation after revision remains a concern, particularly in cases of severe soft tissue damage related to ARMD.

Long-term Follow-up on Revisions of a Recalled Large Head Metal-on-metal Hip Prosthesis: A Single Surgeon Series

Background

In 2010, a recall was issued for a specific monoblock large head metal-on-metal (MoM) hip prosthesis due to short-term revision rates of 12%-13% (articular surface replacement, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Warsaw, IN). High complication, infection, and rerevision rates for revised MoM implants have been reported. The purpose of the study is to report long-term outcomes and trend metal ion levels of this recalled MoM prosthesis from a single surgeon series.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent revision of large MoM hip replacements between 2010 and 2015. Pre- and post-revision Harris Hip Score (HHS), cup abduction angles, anteversion angles, and cup sizes were compared. Survivorship and HHS were the primary outcomes measured; serum cobalt and chromium levels were secondary outcomes. Multivariate linear regression was used to examine the correlation between prerevision serum metal ion levels and HHS.

Results

A total of 24 hips (21 patients) met inclusion criteria. Mean time to revision was 4.12 years ± 1.1. Mean follow-up was 10.0 years (7-11.9 years). Mean HHS increased significantly after revision from 48.5 to 89.5 (P < .001). Higher prerevision cobalt levels were correlated with lower prerevision HHS (cobalt R = 0.25; chromium R = 0.3160). There was no correlation with prerevision cobalt (P = .2671) or chromium (P = .3160) with postrevision HHS. Most recent metal ion testing revealed a significant decrease in both cobalt (P = .0084) and chromium (P = .0115). Survival rate is 100%.

Conclusions

Our study showed excellent survivorship and outcomes at 10 years. There were no failures for any reason including infection. This differs from previous studies and confirms excellent long-term results are possible with revision of this recalled MoM implant.

Long-term results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 65 years of age or older

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MMHRA) is typically used in young and active patients because they have the most to gain from this bone-preserving procedure. However, there is very little long-term data on the performance of MMHRA in patients 65 years of age or older because of the efficacy of conventional total hip arthroplasty in this patient population.

METHODS

109 patients (124 hips) age ⩾65 years were treated with Conserve Plus MMHRA. There were 83 male and 26 female patients. Their mean age at surgery was 69.5 (range 65-83) years. UCLA hip scores, SF-12 quality of life score were collected at follow-up visits. Radiographic and survivorship analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SF-12 scores and UCLA scores were maintained over time except for a small decrease in activity. 4 patients underwent revision surgery. The 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the cohort was 93.7%. All revisions surgeries were successful at a mean follow-up time of 113 (range 30-218) months. Unusual radiographic findings from our previous publication did not progress over time except for 1 hip that showed a complete radiolucency around the acetabular component.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly show that HRA is a viable prosthetic solution with many advantages for all active patients, regardless of their age at the time of surgery.

Surgical management of hip prosthetic failure in metallosis: A case series and literature review

Local and remote complications can be observed in hip prosthesis failures associated with metallosis. Structural changes in the periprosthetic bone and soft tissues may not always be precisely assessed preoperatively due to metal artifacts. The unpredictability of the damage extension, potentially leading to complex and insidious surgeries, requires the availability of alternative surgical plan(s) for the reconstruction of the joint. The aim of the study is to present and analyze, with the literature data support, practical tips for the revision of the prosthetic components, the management of ARMD and of intraoperative complications in the unusual scenario of metallosis.

Dual Mobility Reduces Dislocations-Why I Use It in All Revisions

BACKGROUND

Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and presents a unique treatment dilemma for the orthopedic surgeon. Dual mobility (DM) bearing articulations have been used in France since the 1970s, but have only become more widely adopted in the United States over the last decade. The purpose of this symposium was to discuss the role for DM bearings in revision THA.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing literature on outcomes after DM bearing articulations in revision THA. We also report several case examples of the use of DM in difficult revision THA cases, including acetabular bone loss, failed constrained liner, and adverse local tissue reaction. Finally, we briefly discuss the limitations associated with the use of DM.

RESULTS

Several large retrospective series demonstrate that DM bearings reduce the incidence of dislocation after revision THA when compared with conventional single bearing THA. Specific complications related to DM bearings including polyethylene wear, loosening, intraprosthetic dislocation, and corrosion remain a concern, but appear to have drastically improved over time with modern implant designs.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary DM designs have been established as an effective bearing option to reduce instability in revision THA, although concerns do exist. High-quality prospective studies are necessary to further define the role this bearing option has in the coming years.

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.

Use of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: Indications and outcomes

Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be a problematic complication and remains one of the leading causes of revision surgery in the early post-operative period. Dual mobility (DM) implants decrease dislocation risk after THA but they come with their own set of complications. Selective use of DM implants for THA in high risk groups can confer the advantages of this construct while mitigating the risks. In this paper, we review the current literature to examine the evidence for or against use of DM implants in various clinical scenarios and provide an algorithm for when to consider using DM design construct in THA.

Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Revisions: Pearls and Pitfalls

BACKGROUND

At the turn of the 21st century, there was a re-emergence of metal-on-metal (MoM) articulation with 35% of all total hip arthroplasty implants having MoM articulation. Approximately 10 years after its peak use, MoM articulation began to decrease dramatically as revisions became more apparent because of adverse reaction to metal debris. Today, there are surveillance guidelines and reconstructive clinical pearls a surgeon should recognize.

METHODS

This article gives a literature-based overview of clinical pearls and discusses how to avoid pitfalls when performing revision of a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Patients with MoM can be risk-stratified based on symptom, implant, and testing variables. Those patients who are symptomatic and/or develop adverse reaction to metal debris with local tissue destruction will require a revision. The revision of MoM can be challenging due to bone and soft tissue destruction. Constraint may be needed in cases of abductor deficiency.

CONCLUSION

Although MoM implants for THA have declined significantly, surgeons are still faced with the revision burden from a decade of high use. Risk stratification tools are available to aid in revision decision making, and the surgeon should be prepared to address the challenges these revisions present.

Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?

Revision of large-diameter, monoblock acetabular components for both hip resurfacing arthroplasty and metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to a high amount of complications. For this reason, performing a limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component exchange has been proposed in order to limit these complications. Although DM bearing offers an easy solution avoiding the intraoperative and time-associated complications, concern about polyethylene wear and stability remains due to the difference regarding the design, the coverage angle and the clearance of the two implants. In order to evaluate the performance of this new solution with the new material to prevent the possibility of failure it is essential to conduct a review of the literature A qualitative systematic review of the literature has been conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus for English and French articles between January 2000 and October 2019 was performed, with the primary objective of finding articles about dual mobility bearing coupling with large metal-on-metal cup in the case of hip revision procedure. Various combinations of the key words were used in the search strategy. Thirteen articles with DM bearing mated with MoM cup were analyzed. Of the 130 hip revisions selected, with a follow-up from 6 to 53 months, there were a total of 14 with complications (10.77%): four true dislocations (3.08%); six intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD, 4.6%), two of which presented plastic deformation and polyethylene wear; four other complications (3.08%), included a cup osteolysis, a clicking noise, a superficial infection and a periprosthetic fracture. All the mentioned true dislocations occurred during the first month while IPDs appeared during the first two years from the index revision. In conclusion, according to the literature analyzed, we can stress that the concerns and doubts about mating a DM bearing with large MoM cup cannot be dissolved. It has been pointed out that a DM bearing is not designed for a MoM cup; it is not mechanically tested on MoM cups, which presents different clearance and coverage angles. Predictable complications may occur, such as IPD, polyethylene wear and true dislocation. These complications have been reported at an even higher rate than they were in the eighties, when the first generation of DM implants were of a lower quality of polyethylene and the characteristic of the design was less optimal than modern ones.