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

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.

Can Dual Mobility Cups Reduce Revision and Dislocation Risks? An Analysis of 107,528 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the United States

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility acetabular cups (DMC) were designed to increase the effective femoral head size and improve stability with the goal of reducing revision risk at the potential cost of polyethylene thickness. We sought to evaluate revision risk following primary elective total hip arthroplasty with DMC compared to highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE).

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using data from a Kaiser Permanente's total joint arthroplasty registry. Patients ≥18 years who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty using DMC, unipolar Metal-on-XLPE (MoXLPE), or unipolar Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE) were identified (2010 to 2021). The final sample comprised 2,219 DMC, 48,251 MoXLPE, and 57,058 CoXLPE. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision and any dislocation regardless of revision within 6 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In adjusted analyses, no differences in aseptic revision risk were observed for MoXLPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 1.51) or CoXLPE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.40) compared to DMC. No differences in dislocation risk were observed for MoXLPE (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.15) or CoXLPE (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.87) compared to DMC.

CONCLUSIONS

In a US-based cohort, 6-year aseptic revision risk of DMC was similar to metal or ceramic femoral head unipolar constructs. Furthermore, no difference in dislocation risk was observed. Continued longer-term follow-up may reveal if there is a reduced risk of dislocation that comes at the cost of increased late revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

The Frank Stinchfield Award: Assembly and Dissociation Forces Differ Between Commonly Used Dual Mobility Implants: A Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a complication unique to dual mobility (DM) implants where the outer polyethylene head dissociates from the inner femoral head. Increasing reports of IPD at the time of closed reduction of large head DM dislocations prompted this biomechanical study evaluating the assembly and dissociation forces of DM heads.

METHODS

We tested 17 polyethylene DM heads from 5 vendors. Of the heads, 12 were highly cross-linked polyethylene (4 vendors) and 5 were infused with vitamin E (2 vendors). Heads were between 46 and 47 mm in diameter, accepting a 28 mm-inner ceramic head. Implants were assembled and disassembled using a servohydraulic machine that recorded the forces and torques applied during testing. Dissociation was tested via both axial pull-out and lever-out techniques, where lever-out simulated stem-on-acetabular component impingement.

RESULTS

The initial maximum assembly force was significantly different between all vendors (P < .01) and decreased for all implants with subsequent assembly. Vendor 4-E (Link with vitamin E) heads required the highest assembly force (1,831.9 ± 81.95 N), followed by Vendor 3 (Smith & Nephew), Vendor 5 (DePuy Synthes), Vendor 1-E (Zimmer Biomet with vitamin E), Vendor 2 (Stryker), and Vendor 1 (Zimmer Biomet Arcom). Vendor 4-E implants showed the greatest dissociation resistance in both pull-out (2,059.89 N, n = 1) and lever-out (38.95 ± 2.79 Nm) tests. Vendor 1-E implants with vitamin E required higher assembly force, dissociation force, and energy than Vendor 1 heads without vitamin E.

CONCLUSIONS

There were notable differences in DM assembly and dissociation forces between implants. Diminishing force was required for assembly with each additional trial across vendors. Vendor 4-E DM heads required the highest assembly and dissociation forces. Vitamin E appeared to increase the assembly and dissociation forces. Based on these results, DM polyethylene heads should not be reimplanted after dissociation, and there may be a role for establishing a minimum dissociation energy standard to minimize IPD risk.

The True Dislocation Incidence following Elective Total Hip Replacement in Sweden: How Does It Relate to the Revision Rate?

(1) Background: The true dislocation incidence following THA is difficult to ascertain in population-based cohorts. In this study, we explored the cumulative dislocation incidence (CDI), the relationship between the incidence of dislocation and revision surgery, patient- and surgery-related factors in patients dislocating once or multiple times, and differences between patients being revised for dislocation or not. (2) Methods: We designed an observational longitudinal cohort study linking registers. All patients with a full dataset who underwent an elective unilateral THA between 1999 and 2014 were included. The CDI and the time from the index THA to the first dislocation or to revision were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, giving cumulative dislocation and revision incidences at different time points. (3) Results: 136,810 patients undergoing elective unilateral THA were available for the analysis. The 30-day CDI was estimated at 0.9% (0.9-1.0). The revision rate for dislocation throughout the study period remained much lower. A total of 51.2% (CI 49.6-52.8) suffered a further dislocation within 1 year. Only 10.9% of the patients with a dislocation within the first year postoperatively underwent a revision for dislocation. (4) Discussion: The CDI after elective THA was expectedly considerably higher than the revision incidence. Further studies investigating differences between single and multiple dislocators and the criteria by which patients are offered revision surgery following dislocation are urgently needed.

The Performance of Primary Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged 55 Years and Younger: A Systematic Review

Background

Dual-mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) combines the stabilization advantage provided by large head articulation with the low friction advantage provided by small head articulation. There is momentum for DM to be used in a wider selection of patients, with some advocating for DM to be the routine primary total hip construct. Further investigation is needed to determine whether the use of DM in younger adults is validated by aggregate data. Our objective was to review the literature for the clinical performance of DM THA in patients aged 55 years and younger.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Inclusion in the review required clinical outcome reporting for DM primary THA in ambulatory patients aged 55 years or younger. The risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions and the quality of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

Results

Across a sample of 1048 cases, the frequency weighted term of follow-up was 87.7 months. The pooled rate of revision was 9.5%. The Harris Hip Score significantly improved from 49.1 preoperatively to 93 postoperatively. The Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score significantly improved from 10.5 preoperatively to 17.1 postoperatively.

Conclusions

The literature demonstrates satisfactory short-term outcomes with a mitigated risk of dislocation for DM used as primary THA in patients aged 55 years and younger. The current findings suggest that third-generation designs provide reduced rates of intraprosthetic dislocation and improved survivorship.

Femoral Head Length Impact on Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in 36 Millimeter Cobalt Chrome-on-Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Articulations

BACKGROUND

Despite concerns for corrosion, dislocation, and periprosthetic femur fractures, minimal literature has investigated the effect of adjusting femoral head length on outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of femoral head length on the risk of any revision and reoperation following cobalt chromium (CoCr)-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) THAs.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2018, we identified 1,187 primary THAs with CoCr-on-HXLPE articulations using our institutional total joint registry. The mean age at THA was 71 years (range, 19-97), 40% were women, and mean body mass index was 30 (range, 10-68). All THAs using 36 mm diameter femoral heads were included. Neutral (0 mm), positive, or negative femoral head lengths were used in 42, 31, and 27% of the THAs, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was assessed. The mean follow-up was 7 years (range, 2-16).

RESULTS

The 10-year survivorships free of any revision or reoperation were 94 and 92%, respectively. A total of 47 revisions were performed, including periprosthetic femur fracture (17), periprosthetic joint infection (8), dislocation (7), aseptic loosening of either component (6), corrosion (4), and other (5). Nonrevision reoperations included wound revision (11), open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fracture (4), and abductor repair (2). Multivariable analyses found no significant associations between femoral head length and revision or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Altering femoral head lengths in 36 mm CoCr-on-HXLPE THAs did not affect outcomes. Surgeons should select femoral head lengths that optimize hip stability and center of rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Incidence, Timing, and Predictors of Hip Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be complicated by dislocation. The incidence of and risk factors for dislocation are incompletely understood. This study aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of hip dislocation within 2 years of primary THA.

METHODS

The 2010 to 2020 PearlDiver MHip database was used to identify patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis with a minimum of 2 years of postoperative data. Dislocation was identified by associated codes. Age, sex, body mass index, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, fixation method, and bearing surface were compared for patients with dislocation versus control subjects by multivariate regression. Timing and cumulative incidence of dislocation were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 155,185 primary THAs, dislocation occurred within 2 years in 3,630 (2.3%). By multivariate analysis, dislocation was associated with younger age (<65 years), female sex, body mass index < 20, higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, cemented prosthesis, and use of metal-on-poly or metal-on-metal implants ( P< 0.05 for each). Among patients who experienced at least one dislocation, 52% of first-time dislocations occurred in the first 3 months; 57% had more than one and 11% experienced >5 postoperative dislocation events. Revision surgery was done within 2 years of index THA for 45.6% of those experiencing dislocation versus 1.8% of those who did not ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study found that 2.3% of a large cohort of primary THA patients experienced dislocation within 2 years, identified risk factors for dislocation, and demonstrated that most patients experiencing dislocation had recurrent episodes of instability and were more likely to require revision surgery.

Modular dual-mobility articulations in patients with adverse spinopelvic mobility

AIMS

Adverse spinal motion or balance (spine mobility) and adverse pelvic mobility, in combination, are often referred to as adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM). A stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt, and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Adverse SPM can create functional malposition of the acetabular components and hence is an instability risk. Adverse pelvic mobility is often, but not always, associated with abnormal spinal motion parameters. Dislocation rates for dual-mobility articulations (DMAs) have been reported to be between 0% and 1.1%. The aim of this study was to determine the early survivorship from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) of patients with adverse SPM who received a DMA.

METHODS

A multicentre study was performed using data from 227 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), enrolled consecutively. All the patients who had one or more adverse spine or pelvic mobility parameter had a DMA inserted at the time of their surgery. The mean age was 76 years (22 to 93) and 63% were female (n = 145). At a mean of 14 months (5 to 31) postoperatively, the AOANJRR was analyzed for follow-up information. Reasons for revision and types of revision were identified.

RESULTS

The AOANJRR reported two revisions: one due to infection, and the second due to femoral component loosening. No revisions for dislocation were reported. One patient died with the prosthesis in situ. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 99.1% (95% confidence interval 98.3 to 100) at 14 months (number at risk 104).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients undergoing primary THA with one or more factor associated with adverse SPM, DM bearings conferred stability at two years' follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):820-825.

The Impact of Surgeon Variability on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient-related and surgery-related factors have been shown to be drivers of outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, the impact of intersurgeon variability is poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to assess the following: (1) overall effect of surgeon on 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and 90-day readmission following THA; and (2) variability in 1-year PROMs among surgeons.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 3,695 patients who underwent THA between 2016 and 2018 was included. Seventy-eight percent of patients completed 1-year follow-up. Thirty-one surgeons from a large healthcare system were included. Likelihood ratio tests analyzed the relationship among surgeon and 1-year Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)-Pain, HOOS-Physical Function Short-Form, HOOS-Joint Replacement, University of California, Los Angeles activity score, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, LOS, discharge disposition, and 90-day readmission. Mixed-effect proportional odds and logistic regression models were used to determine variable importance for each outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 90.5% of patients responded positively to 1-year Patient Acceptable Symptom State. There was a significant association among surgeon and 1-year PROMs, LOS, discharge disposition (P < .001), and readmission (P = .002). For HOOS-Pain, Physical Function Short-Form, and Joint Replacement, surgeon (Akaike information criterion increase: 34.6, 18.7, 17.1, respectively) was a greater contributor to outcome than patient-level factors, including age, gender, and comorbidity. Differences in the highest and lowest median probability of achieving any given score on 1-year PROMs ranged from 11% to 18.5%. Variability was not explained by approach (P = .431) or case volume (correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon-level variability appears to be a greater driver of 1-year PROMs than some patient-level characteristics. Incorporating surgeon as a variable is beneficial for model-fitting and important for increasing value in THA.

Primary THA Using Thin Polyethylene Liners and Large Femoral Heads: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Large femoral head sizes are commonly used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to minimize the risk of instability. With small acetabular cup-size, large femoral head diameter often results in the use of thin polyethylene liners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic results of large femoral heads against thin polyethylene liners with minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review identifying 58 primary THAs utilizing thin polyethylene inserts from one manufacturer (X3 polyethylene, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) and large femoral heads (36 mm or greater) with minimum 5-year follow-up. A total of 3 patients were deceased and 11 lost to follow-up, leaving 44 patients for review. All patients were female with mean age 65.7 (range 26-85) and mean body mass index (BMI) 29.9 (range 19.6-45.4). Average length of follow-up was 8.5 years (range 5.1-11.3). Outcome measures included survivorship, complications, PROMs and radiographic analysis.

RESULTS

There were four revisions: two aseptic loosening, one prosthetic joint infection, and one recurrent dislocation. Average HOOS-Jr, FJS-12, and patient satisfaction using Likert score was 94.3/100, 92.9/100, and 4.69/5.00, respectively, with 94% of patients reporting being satisfied or very satisfied. Radiographic analysis at average of 8.5 years demonstrated well-fixed implants without evidence of progressive radiolucent lines, osteolysis, or failure of the polyethylene liner. Survivorship using failure of the thin polyethylene liner as the endpoint was 100% at an average of 8.5 years.

CONCLUSION

Thin polyethylene liners used with large femoral head sizes in small acetabular cups demonstrated excellent results at average 8.5-year follow-up with no cases of liner fracture or osteolysis.

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.

Acetabular Revision Arthroplasty Based on 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Technology Using Jumbo Cups

Background: This study was aimed at evaluating the changes in cup coverage (CC) and hip center of rotation (HCOR) in acetabular defects of various severities treated with acetabular revision using jumbo cups.

Methods: A total of 86 hips were included. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) classification of these patients was as follows: 16 patients, AAOS I; 16 patients, AAOS II; and 16 patients, AAOS III. A three-dimensional (3D) implant simulation technique was used to visualize the placement of jumbo cups during revision arthroplasty. The acetabular anteversion, inclination, CC, and the HCOR were measured.

Results: The inclination and anteversion of simulated acetabular cups in AAOS I–III groups were consistent with the normal acetabular anatomy. Compared with the controls, in AAOS I–III groups, the HCOR was significantly increased and CC was significantly decreased. The HCOR elevation was significantly higher in AAOS III patients than in AAOS I (p = 0.001) and AAOS II patients (p < 0.001). The use of the jumbo cup technology for acetabular revision would decrease the CC in AAOS I–III patients to 86.47, 84.78, and 74.51%, respectively.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that in patients with acetabular defects, acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups will lead to decreased CC and HCOR upshift. Upon classifying these patients according to the AAOS classification, CC decreased with the severity of acetabular defects, and the elevation of the HCOR in AAOS III patients exceeded 10 mm and was significantly higher than in other patients.