Dual-mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty after femoral neck fractures: A retrospective study comparing outcomes between cemented and cementless fixation

Short-term primary and revision modular dual-mobility cup total hip arthroplasty outcomes in high-risk dislocation patients: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Modular dual-mobility cups (MDMCs) have a lower risk for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary aims of our study were to analyze implant survivorship and to determine complications, especially dislocation, and revision rates of primary THAs used for hip fracture patients and for revision THAs. Secondary aims were to evaluate mortality after MDMC surgery and to find out if introduction of MDMC at our institution (Kuopio University Hospital, Finland) have decreased dislocation rate.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study consisted of 101 MDMC patients who were consecutively operated at our institution between April 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020. The implant survival rate, complications and mortality were evaluated with minimum of 2-year follow-up. Finnish Hospital Discharge Register was used to find out yearly dislocation rates following THA at our institution.

RESULTS

The cumulative estimate implant survival after MDMC in the primary THA group was 97% at 2 years, and in the revision THA group, it was 90% at 2 years. Dislocation was a rare complication in the primary THA group (1.4%), while it was common in revision THA group (12.9%). The cumulative estimate for mortality after MDMC in the primary THA group was 13% at 2 years, and in the revision group, it was also 13% at 2 years. The yearly number of patients who had re-hospitalization period due to THA dislocation decreased 46% after implementation of MDMC.

CONCLUSION

Short-term survival and complication rates after MDMC were excellent after primary THA and moderate after revision THA. Implementation of MDMC THA for hip fracture patients seems to have effectively decrease dislocation rate during a short follow-up.

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

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

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.

Direct Cementation of Dual Mobility Cups Into the Bony Acetabulum in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Cemented dual mobility cups (DMCs) are commonly used in combination with acetabular reinforcement devices. Indeed, according to literature, direct cementation of metal-backed acetabular components into the bony acetabulum remains controversial as this technique is potentially associated with increased rates of aseptic loosening. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of DMC cemented into the bony acetabulum in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A total of 49 THA (48 patients, mean age 78 years [range, 51 to 91]) performed with direct cementation of a DMC into the bony acetabulum were prospectively included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). The radiographic outcome included measurement of component positioning and occurrence and progression of demarcation around the cemented DMC. Complications were reported with a particular attention to cemented fixation failure and aseptic loosening.

RESULTS

At a 7-year mean follow-up (range, 5 to 8), the pre-to postoperative HHS improved from 47 (range, 30 to 58) to 92 points (range, 80 to 98) (P < .01). Nonprogressive and focalized demarcations were observed in 7 THA (14%). Importantly, no progressive demarcation or DMC aseptic loosening was observed.

CONCLUSION

Direct cementation of DMC into the bony acetabulum ensured a stable fixation with no progressive demarcation or aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. Therefore, this technique can be selectively considered in primary THA, especially in elderly or frail patients to avoid potential mechanical failure of press-fit fixation due to altered bone quality or additional morbidity related to the use of acetabular reinforcement devices.

Implant survival of cemented arthroplasty following failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures in patients aged 30-60 years: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 10 years

Background

Given the unremitting growth in the volume of failed fixations of proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) in recent years, it is predictable that total hip replacements (THRs) will be the preferred surgical procedure. The long-term survival of cemented THR (CTHR) revisions remains controversial in patients aged 30–60 years. The goal of this retrospective review was to evaluate the 10-year survival of CTHRs following prior failed primary fixations of PFFs in patients aged 30–60 years.

Methods

We retrospectively identified CTHR revisions implemented at four medical centres during 2008–2017 for a failed primary fixation of PFFs in consecutive patients aged 30–60 years. The primary endpoint was implant survival calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); secondary endpoints included functional scores assessed by Harris hip scores (HHS) and main revision-related orthopaedic complications. Follow-up was executed at 1, 2, 3, and 8 years following revision and then at 1-year intervals until the revision, death, or study deadline, whichever occurred first.

Results

In total, 120 patients (120 hips) who met the eligibility criteria were eligible for follow-up. The median follow-up was 10.2 years (range, 8–12 years). Kaplan–Meier survivorship showed that implant survival with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 95% at 5 years (CI: 93–97%), 89% at 8 years (CI: 86–92%), and 86% at 10 years (CI: 83–89%). Patients treated with three hollow screws had better revision-free survival than patients treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA), dynamic hip screw (DHS) or titanium plate plus screws (three p < 0.05). Functional scores were apt to decrease gradually, and at the final follow-up, the mean HHS was 76.9 (range, 67.4–86.4). The overall rate of main revision-related orthopaedic complications was 18.3% (22/120).

Conclusion

CTHR implemented following prior failed primary fixations of PFFs tends to afford an acceptable 10-year survival, along with advantageous HHS and a low rate of main revision-related orthopaedic complications, which may support an inclination to follow the utilisation of CTHRs, especially in revision settings for intracapsular fractures.

Comparison of functional outcomes and complications of cemented vs uncemented total hip arthroplasty in the elderly neck of femur fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The neck of femur fractures in the elderly is a global concern. These fractures impair the quality of living and add to morbidity and mortality. A Multitude of treatment options for the same. This systematic review focuses on evaluating outcomes between cemented and uncemented total hip replacement in the elderly population with neck of femur fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search was conducted in databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, open grey, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines. The studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included, scrutinized for data analysis, and also quality appraisal of all the included studies was conducted to be included in this article.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies were included (2 RCT, 5 retrospective studies) comprising 1171 THRs. Data analysis showed a higher HHS in cemented compared to uncemented(p < 0.001). The uncemented group had a significantly higher rate of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture compared to cemented group(p < 0.001). However, VAS score, loosening rates, and heterotopic ossification were similar in both statistically insignificant groups.

CONCLUSION

Choosing between cemented and uncemented techniques had been a controversy with lesser data due to higher morbidity and mortality. This systematic review provides information regarding functional outcomes and complications in both groups. The cemented group had better outcomes and lesser complications which should be preferred in elderly patients as the conclusion of this study. However, a larger RCT with better follow-up is still required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.