Dual mobility cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: dislocation rate and survival after 5 years

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

AIMS

Dual mobility (DM) implants have received increasing interest in revision surgery due to their increased stability. The aim of this systematic review was to compare outcomes of DM versus conventional fixed bearing (FB) implants in revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (r-THA).

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Dual-mobility tripod cup for revision hip arthroplasty: long-term (five to fourteen years) evaluation of a new generation cementless implant

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the survivorships of a new generation cementless DMC with tripod additional fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty and complications at a minimum five year follow-up.

METHODS

One hundred and fifteen revisions (THA) treated with tripod DMC performed between 2009 and 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Acetabular defects were classified as Paprosky 1 (n = 38, 33%), 2 (n = 75, 65%) or 3 (n = 2, 2%). Unipolar or bipolar revision was performed for the following indications: aseptic acetabular loosening (63%), infection (14%), aseptic bipolar loosening (11%), instability (4%), aseptic femoral loosening (3%), ALVAL (3%) and iliopsoas impingement (2%). Mean follow-up was 9.4 years ± two (range, 5 to 14).

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, a single episode of dislocation occurred within three months after the procedure (0.8%) with no revision. Three cases of aseptic loosening were diagnosed (2.6%). Four infections (3.5%) required reoperation: three required a two stage bipolar revision; one was treated by DAIR procedure. At the latest follow-up, the survivorship of the acetabular cup for aseptic loosening was 98% [95% CI (91.2-99.4)] and for any reasons was 94.4% [95% CI (90.1%-98.9%)]; the mean HHS improved from 60 points (range, 18-94 points) to 83 points (range, 37-100 points) (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study reports a low complication rate in favour of the use of a tripod DMC in revision THA with a satisfactory survivorship at a ten year follow-up.

Closed reduction of dislocated hip prosthesis using a traction table

This article describes three cases in which a dislocated hip prosthesis was reduced by a new reduction technique - that we previously described - using traction table. The dissociation of a prosthesis is a rare but serious complication of closed reduction manoeuvre. The new reduction manoeuvre using a traction table may be a good option to avoid dissociation of the prosthesis during closed reduction for treatment of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.

What is the rate of successful closed reduction of dislocated dual mobility cups following complex revision hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the difference in success rates of closed reduction in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed with a dual mobility (DM) implant. Our objective was to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a difference in success rates of closed reduction between septic and aseptic revision THA with a DM implant? (2) Is closed or open reduction more successful in preventing re-dislocation?

METHODS

Between January 2009 and October 2021, 924 revisions were performed with a DM implant. All patients presenting to our institution with a dislocation following septic or aseptic revision THA using a cemented DM cup were included in this study. We analyzed 106 cases of dislocation in 74 patients. For all patients, we collected reason for revision, and classified index surgery as septic or aseptic.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 dislocations occurred (106/924, 11.5%). Thirty-nine cases (52.7%) had a dislocation after a septic exchange THA, while in 35 patients (47.3%), a dislocation occurred after an aseptic rTHA. In 29 patients (39.2%), successful closed reduction under general anesthesia was feasible, while the majority of cases required open reduction. In 31 of these patients (67.4%), open reduction was combined with a revision arthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of DM cup dislocation, there is a low success rate of closed reduction. To prevent re-dislocation, total revision leads to a significantly reduced risk compared to open or closed reduction alone. Careful X-ray analysis for a halo sign showing intra-prosthetic DM cup dislocation is mandatory to avoid futile reduction attempts.

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.

Cementless augmented versus cemented Dual Mobility cups: medium-term outcome of case series with a control group

BACKGROUND

Post-operative dislocation and reconstruction of acetabular defects are two challenging topics in revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (rTHA). Cemented Dual Mobility (DM) cups on top of Kerboull Cross and bone graft have been successfully employed to overcome these challenges. The cementless augmented DM cups were recently introduced. In this study medium term results of the augmented cementless DM Coptos cups are reported and compared to the established technique of cemented DM cups and Kerboull plate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of data collected on patients who received rTHA using DM cups in the period between June 2015 and September 2020. Two groups of patients were identified. The first group received cementless augmented DM-cups (NOVAE® Coptos TH-SERF) (Coptos TH cup group). The second comparable group who had Kerboull ring (KE ring group) and cemented DM cups (NOVAE® STICK). Demographic data, surgical technique, functional and radiological outcome as well as complications during the follow-up visits are reported.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with a mean age at the time of revision 48.8 ± 13.6 years. 29 patients received Coptos TH DM-cup, while 13 patients had Bone Graft (BG), KE ring and cemented DM cups for acetabular reconstruction. Acetabular defects were Paprosky types IIB and IIC in 31 patients and IIIA and B in 11 patients. The follow-up was 52.8 ± 21 months (mean ± STD); and the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) at last visit was 91 ± 5. Good stability of all cups was reported. Full integration of the impaction graft was observed in 94% of the Coptos and 92% of the KE groups. One of the Coptos cups was readjusted and one case of single dislocation was recorded in the KE group. None of the DM cups in both groups was revised or awaiting revision.

CONCLUSION

Coptos TH cups achieve similar results to the cemented DM on KE ring at the medium term but long term outcome remains to be seen.

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.

THE CEMENTED DOUBLE MOBILITY CUP IN HIP REVISION: DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES OF USE

Introduction

The aim of our work is to review those patients who underwent prosthetic hip revision surgery in our hospital considered to be patients at high risk of dislocation or recurrent dislocation, and who underwent a double mobility cemented cup (CMD). Analyzing the different ways to place these cups and the clinical results and reluxations.

Material and methods

The 69 cases comprised 34 men and 35 women with a mean age of 77,39 years. The mean follow-up was 4.7536 years. The type of intervention performed varied according to the cause of the intervention, the acetabular bone stock and the state of the primary cup. In the cases in which there was a good fixation of the primary metalback, we opted to carry out a cementation of the cemented DMC into the existing well-fixed metal acetabular shell, this occurred in 23 cases. In the cases where there was loosening of the primary cup but there was a good bone stock, a CMD was cemented into the bone (21 cases). In the cases where there was a Paprosky type III we cemented a DMC to a Bursch-Schneider reinforcement ring together with the placement of a cancellous bone graft (25 cases).

Results

The clinical evaluation at the end of the follow-up, according to the MD Scale, showed the mean value was 16.454 (SD 0.79472), with a survival at the end of the follow-up of 100% of the placed DMC.

Conclusion

The use of cemented DMC is a good solution in the replacement of THA, especially in cases of reluxation or risk of dislocation due to personal or technical predisposing factors. The use of these DMC cemented can be directly to the bone, into the existing well-fixed metal Shell, or cemented to a reinforcing ring, depending on the acetabular defect. Evidence Level III; Comparative Case Series .

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.

Changing Surgical Approach From Primary to Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Associated With Increased Risk of Dislocation or Re-Revisions

BACKGROUND

No prior studies have examined outcomes based on approach concordance between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is theoretical concern that performing surgery through multiple planes could potentiate dislocation risk. This study aimed to assess the impact of utilizing concordant vs discordant surgical approaches between primary and revision THA on incidence of dislocation, re-revision, reoperation, and nonoperative complications.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2018, 705 revision THAs were retrospectively identified in patients who underwent primary THA at the same academic center. Surgical approach was determined for primary and revision THA from operative notes with dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and complications determined from our total joint registry. Complication rates were compared between those with concordant and discordant surgical approaches. Mean age was 65 years, 50% were female, mean body mass index was 31 kg/m², and mean follow-up was 4 years.

RESULTS

Surgical approach discordance occurred in 97 cases (14%), which was more frequent when the direct anterior approach was used for primary THA (72%, P < .001) compared to lateral (12%) or posterior (10%) approaches. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and nonoperative complications among those with concordant and discordant approaches for the overall cohort and when analyzed by primary approach (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Comparable dislocation and complication rates were observed among revision THAs with concordant and discordant approaches between primary and revision THA. These data provide reassurance that changing vs maintaining the surgical approach from primary to revision THA does not significantly increase dislocation or re-revision risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA.

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint.

RESULTS

Of the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P = .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P = .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P = .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P = .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P = .059).

CONCLUSION

Both CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.

Dual Mobility Cup: Does It Improve Patient's Satisfaction After Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Prospective Comparative Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the great success of total hip arthroplasty (THA), many patients were fairly dissatisfied after surgery. Therefore, patient-reported outcome measures have become of an utmost importance in assessing the results after joint replacement. This study was conducted to compare the postoperative patient-reported satisfactions after implantation of two commonly used THA designs.

METHODS

Of 180 patients, who initially fulfilled the study selection criteria and received cementless THA, 165 patients were finally eligible and enrolled in this prospective comparative randomized study. All surgeries were carried out between 2010 and 2018. Two groups of homogenous demographic and clinical data were present. Group A patients (n = 80) were treated by large head THA, whereas group B (n = 85) received dual mobility cup designs. The Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and visual analog scale were used for clinical evaluation. The degree of improvement that the patient expected and hoped before undergoing their surgeries was estimated using the score of the new knee society. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale was used to record the levels of patient satisfaction after surgery, and their values were statistically analyzed in relation to preoperative expectation scores (ie, score of the new knee society) and different clinical and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 79 ± 4.13 months (range 24 to 96 months), both groups recorded a significant improvement (P < 0.05) in Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and visual analogue scale scores. Patients of group B were significantly more satisfied (P < 0.05) than those of group A up to the first postoperative year. Certain studied variables were linked to superior satisfaction results among group B at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual mobility THA provides better patient satisfaction than their standard large head alternatives specifically among elderly patients, socially unsupported individuals, farmers, heavy manual workers, and those with high levels of expectations.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT04333316.

Outcome of revision surgery in recurrent dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The cause of recurrent dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is multifactorial. A re-dislocation rate of up-to 34% following revision is reported. The aim of this study was to determine the re-dislocation rates following revision for recurrent THR dislocation.

METHODOLOGY

Patients who underwent revision for recurrent dislocation between January 2008 and January 2015 were identified. We identified the date and type of primary implant, overall number and reasons for dislocation, revision implant details and complication data.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 24 patients underwent revision. The median age was 77 (68-85) years, median time to first dislocation was 78 (23-160) months and median number of dislocations was 3 (2-4) with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Socket Mal-Orientation (10) and Abductor deficiency (5) were the main causes of recurrent dislocation. 21 patients (88%) underwent revision of both components, 1 patient underwent isolated cup revision and 2 patients had revision of acetabular component with insertion of a BioBall. There were no dislocations within 90 days of revision surgery. 4 patients had late dislocations (3 recurrent, 1 isolated). There was no significant increase risk of dislocation after revision surgery in the neck of femur group (p = 0.467).

CONCLUSIONS

We report favourable outcomes for revision of both components for recurrent dislocation with no dislocations within 90 days. The overall late dislocation rate was 16.7%, however, these patients have settled following closed reduction. Due to its multifactorial aetiology, both component revision can be considered in this patient population.

Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of Constrained Acetabular Liners in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of constrained acetabular liners (CALs) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with hip instability; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this constrained implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to examine survivorship and complication rate of CAL usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.

RESULTS

In all, 37 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 4152 CALs were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 79.9%. The overall complication rate was 22.2%. Dislocation was the most common complications observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 9.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Infection after CAL placement had an incidence of 4.6%. The reoperation rate for aseptic acetabular component loosening was 2.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.

CONCLUSION

CALs usage have a relatively high complication rate, particularly when compared with current bearing alternatives (dual mobility cups and large diameter femoral heads), however, it remains a valuable salvage procedure in complex patients affected by recurrent dislocation and implant instability. Newer designs have shown reduced impingement and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, CALs should only be used when the reasons of instability have been correctly recognized and optimized.

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.

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.

Salvage reconstruction of hip ligaments using absorbable material to treat recurrent instability of revision THA without abductor mechanism

Dual-mobility and constrained cups can stabilise most recurrent dislocations of total hip arthroplasty (THA), but may fail in case of hip abductor mechanism loss. For such complex situations, we developed an original artificial iliofemoral and ischiofemoral ligament reconstruction technique using a polyglactin 910 mesh (Vicryl ™) associated to repositioning of a Lefèvre constrained liner adapted to hip range of motion to prevent cam effects. The technique was implemented in 2 patients showing recurrent dislocation after THA, associating total femur replacement and cemented constrained liner in a metal reinforcement ring. In one of the 2 cases, the abductor mechanism had been entirely sacrificed. This simple and accessible salvage technique prevented recurrence of dislocation at 12 months' follow-up in these complex cases, previously subject to several episodes per year.

What Is the Dislocation and Revision Rate of Dual-mobility Cups Used in Complex Revision THAs?

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility cups have been shown to reduce the dislocation risk after THA. Although dual-mobility cups can be a useful strategy to mitigate against recurrent dislocation after revision surgery, few clinical studies have focused on the results of complex revision THAs with extensive bone and soft-tissue loss or in patients who have undergone more than one previous surgical procedure.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the survival free from revision for dislocation of dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THAs? (2) What is the survival free from any dislocation?

METHODS

Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, 327 patients underwent a complex revision THA that included an acetabular revision, defined as preexisting massive bone loss in the acetabulum (at least Paprosky Type 2B) and/or proximal femur (at least Paprosky Type 3), substantial gluteal soft-tissue involvement, at least two previous surgical procedures or a one-stage septic revision, or history of dislocation. All 327 complex revision patients received a dual-mobility cup. Of those, 34% (111) were lost to follow-up before 5 years and were not known to have reached a study endpoint (revision for dislocation, and any dislocation) before then, leaving 216 patients for analysis. For patients with bilateral hip surgeries only the first operated hip was included for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 69 months (60 to 110). The primary endpoint was dislocation or re-revision for dislocation. Fifty-six percent (120 of 216) of the patients were women and 44% (96 of 216) were men. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 9 years. The patients underwent a median of four surgical procedures (1 to 4) before the index procedure (the revision evaluated in this study). A survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; any dislocation or revision for dislocation was determined as the endpoint.

RESULTS

The dislocation-free survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval 92 to 98) at 5 years and 82% (95% CI 72 to 89) at 9 years. The overall dislocation rate was 11% (24 of 216 patients) at the final follow-up interval. Survival free of revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) at 5 years and 85% (95% CI 75 to 92) at 9 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THA in this series had a higher rate of dislocation and revision than expected, based on earlier studies of dislocations of these components. Although we believe dual-mobility cups are still the first choice of implant if the patient has instability, these cups should be used cautiously if severe bone loss or soft-tissue involvement is present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual-mobility cups for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Femoral neck fractures (FNFs), with up to 15% mortality, are prominent orthopaedic emergencies. After treating FNFs, dislocation is another challenge increasing morbidity, mortality and treatment costs substantially. The emerging dual-mobility cup (DMC) may decrease dislocation rates following total hip arthroplasty (THA) for FNFs. We performed a systematic review of literature reporting dislocation and mortality rates with DMC-THA for the treatment of FNFs.

METHODS

2 authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane library for studies reporting dislocation and mortality rates for FNFs treated with DMC-THA since inception up to January 2019. Data on outcomes of interest was extracted from all studies and assessed for eligibility for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 522 search results, 18 studies were included in the systematic review and 4 in the meta-analysis. The mean rate of dislocation following DMC-THA for FNFs was found to be 1.87% ± 2.11, with a 1-year mortality rate of 14.0% ± 10.55. Results of meta-analysis showed that dislocation and 1-year postoperative mortality rates were significantly lower for DMC-THA with a risk ratio 0.31 (95% CI, 0.16-0.59; I² = 0%, p = 0.0003) and 0.55 (0.40, 0.77; I² = 0%, p = 0.003) respectively when compared to biploar hemiathroplasty (BHA).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean dislocation and mortality rates in DMC-THA are lower than previously reported rates for THA with single cup and comparable to unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Further research involving randomised control trials to assess differences in outcomes, longevity and cost-effectiveness needs to be conducted to make recommendations for the use of DMC in treating FNFs.

A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty

Aims

The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA.

Methods

We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA.

Results

At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years.

Conclusion

The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135.

Dual mobility THR: Resolving instability and providing near normal range of movement

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a common complication of Total Hip Replacement (THR), particularly when performed in primary (indications with increased risk of instability) and in revision scenarios. Dual mobility THR (DMTHR) minimizes the risk of instability in such scenarios, however most of the evidence is from western literature. Results of DMTHR in Indian scenarios where patient want to go back to their normal routine activities of squatting and sitting cross-legged is lacking. The aim of our study was to evaluate the short to mid-term results of DMTHR for varied indications (both primary and revision) in Indian scenario. To evaluate the outcome of the DMTHR in terms of functional range of motion and the ability to go back to their pre-injury level of activity.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 150 patients operated with DMTHR between January 2015 to February 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients were evaluated clinically using Modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), Range of Motion (ROM), and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) like ability to squat and sit cross legged. Radiological evaluation was done using radiographs to assess loosening, stress shielding, osteolysis.

RESULTS

Mean follow up in our study was 25.2 months (Range 12-46 months). Mean Modified HHS was 71.8 ± 8.11 at 6 weeks post-op and 85.8 ± 7.62 at last follow-up. HHS showed excellent outcome in 36 hips (26.7%), good outcome in 76 hips (56.7%), fair outcome in 20 hips (14.6%), poor outcome in 3 hips (2%). All our patients were allowed to squat and sit cross-legged at a mean follow-up period of 13 weeks (8 weeks-20 weeks) except 10 cases of Revision THR where patients were advised not to squat or sit cross-legged. All patients were able to resume their activities of daily living.

CONCLUSION

DMTHR in patients of all ages has shown a good short to midterm clinical outcome which is comparable to conventional THR. It confers the benefit of stability allowing our patients to squat and sit cross legged which is often one of the expectation and requirement of a patient undergoing THR in India. DMTHR in both primary and revision scenarios exhibit a low risk of dislocation, complications and revision surgery.

Comparison of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Literature Review

Recurrent instability remains a common cause of failure after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups and designs with constrained acetabular liners (CAL) have both been developed to help overcome this challenge. The aim of this report is to compare safety and efficacy outcomes of both designs based on the literature. A comprehensive literature review including published evidence on the results of DM and CAL in revision THA was performed and summarized. Available literature focusing on overall survival, dislocation, loosening, intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD), and functional outcomes were analysed. Forty-six reports including an evaluation of 5,617 total hips were evaluated were included in the review. The included studies were divided into two distinct groups based on implantation approach: i) CAL (n=15) and ii) DM (n=31). The DM group had higher overall survival rates (94.7% vs. 81.0%), lower dislocation rates (2.6% vs. 11.0%), and lower acetabular loosening rates (1.0% vs. 2.0%) compared to the CAL group. IPDs were reported in 6 studies (mean rate, 0.6%). No differences in functional outcomes were identified due to incomplete reports. Our observations reveal that designs with CAL have poorer outcomes as compared to DM cups in revision THA. Currently, the use of DM seems more appropriate since they offer lower rates of dislocations, loosening and re-revisions in the short- and mid-term. Concerns regarding the potential of increased wear in a younger, high-demand population require additional data and evaluation by long-term studies for the DM design.

Can dual mobility cups prevent dislocation without increasing revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the leading causes for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address this problem, the dual mobility (DM) cup was developed in the 1970s by the French. Despite the increased and, in some countries, broad use of DM cups, high quality evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional unipolar (UP) cups is lacking. There are a few well-conducted literature reviews, but the level of evidence of the included studies was moderate to low and the rates of revision were not specifically investigated. Therefore, we did a systematic review to investigate whether there is a difference in the rate of dislocations and revisions after primary THA with a DM cup or a UP cup.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases in July 2019. The articles were selected based upon their quality, relevance and measurement of the predictive factor. We used the MINORS criteria to determine the methodological quality of all studies.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 702 citations. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles met our eligibility criteria and were graded. Included studies were of medium to low methodological quality with a mean score of 14/24 (11-16) points following the MINORS criteria. In the case-control studies, a total of 549 DM cups and 649 UP cups were included. In the registry studies, a total of 5.935 DM cups and 217.362 UP cups were included. In the case-control studies, one (0.2%) dislocation was reported for the DM cups and 46 (7.1%) for the UP cup (p=0.009, IQR=0.00-7.00). Nine (1.6%) revisions, of which zero due to dislocation, were reported for the DM cup and 39 (6.0%), of which 30 due to dislocation, for the UP cup (p=0.046, CI=-16.93-5.73). In the registry studies 161 (2.7%) revisions were reported for the DM cup, of which 14 (8.7%) due to dislocation. For the UP cup, 3.332 (1.5%) revisions were reported (p=0.275, IQR=41.00-866.25), of which 1.093 (32.8%) due to dislocation (p=0.050, IQR=3.50-293.25).

CONCLUSION

This review suggests lower rates of dislocation and lower rates of revision for dislocation in favor of the DM cups. Concluding, DM cups might be an effective solution to reduce dislocation in primary THA. To evaluate the efficacy of DM cups compared to UP cups, an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial is needed focusing on patient important endpoints.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, systematic review of level III studies.

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; Serf, Décines-Charpieu, France) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years.

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

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a challenging surgery with a higher rate of complications than primary arthroplasty, particularly instability and aseptic loosening. The purpose of this study is to compare dual mobility cup (DMC) and standard mobility cup (SMC) in all rTHAs performed at our institution over a decade with a 1 year minimum follow-up.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-five rTHAs (acetabular only and bipolar revisions) between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. These were divided into those with a DMC (184 revisions) or SMC (111 revisions). Dislocation and complications requiring re-revision were reported.

RESULTS

The rTHA mean age was 69 years ± 13.9 (19-92) and the mean follow-up was 2.3 years. Dislocation risk was statistically lower (P = .01) with a DMC (3.8%; 7/184) than with an SMC (13.5%; 15/111). DMC required re-rTHA in 24/184 (13%) for any reason compared to SMC in 19/111 (17.1%) (P = .34). There was no significant difference in early aseptic loosening (P = .28) between the 2 groups. For young patients (≤55 years), results were similar with a lower dislocation rate in the DMC group (P = .24) and no increased risk of early aseptic loosening (P = .49).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that for all rTHA indications DMC compared to SMC has a significantly decreased risk of postoperative dislocation without risk of early aseptic loosening at medium term follow-up. The use of DMC in rTHA is an important consideration particularly with the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision THA globally.

Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.

METHODS

From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4-31.3), p = 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC_95%, 79.9-100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank, p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.

Use of a Dual mobility cup to prevent hip early arthroplasty dislocation in patients at high falls risk

INTRODUCTION

Hip fracture is a common serious injury that occurs mainly in elderly. Dual-mobility hip arthroplasty or bipolar emiarthroplasty for its treatment remains a controversial decision. Co-morbidities and risk of fall represent additional aspects to be considered. The aim of our study was to determine the rate of mechanical complications for these two types of implants related to fall risk status of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study is a retrospective clinical trial of patients operated with a biarticular hemiarthroplasty or a dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty. Primary outcome was dislocation rate and need for any revision procedure. Patients were treated in a single center from January 2013 to March 2017. In all cases Morse Fall Scale (MSF) was calculated at patient admission to evaluate the risk of postoperative fall. Inclusion criteria to the study were: subcapital or femoral neck fracture of non-pathologic nature, patients with neuromuscular disorders or cognitive dysfunction, age > 75 years with MFS ≥ 45. The patients were reviewed postoperatively at 8 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. Patients had clinical (Harris hip score) and radiological assessment.

RESULTS

The mean duration of the follow-up was 283 months. There were five dislocations in Group A (5,6%) and no dislocations in Group B (0%). All dislocations occurred within the first 6 months after surgery. The mean Harris Hip score was 81,7 in Group A patients and 79, 8 in Group B patients.

DISCUSSION

Treatment of hip fractures on non-cooperative patients still represents a dilemma. Falls and runaway motions represent high risk factors of dislocation. Use of dual-mobility cup has been found to be associated with a not statistically proved decrease of dislocation compared to traditional cups.

CONCLUSION

Dual-mobility cups might be considered a valuable option to prevent postoperative dislocation but further study is needed before extending the indications for dual-mobility following a fracture of the femoral neck, to assess the potential cost and complications of a longer procedure. So far, despite a lower dislocation risk, the authors actually cannot recommend widely use of a dual-motility cup instead of emiarthroplasty in high falls risk patients.

The Lawrence D. Dorr Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Why Are Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties Failing? An Analysis of 2500 Cases

BACKGROUND

As revision implants and techniques have evolved and improved, understanding why contemporary revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) fail is important to direct further improvement and innovation. As such, the goals of this study are to determine the implant survivorship of contemporary revision THAs, as well as the most common indications for re-revision.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 2589 aseptic revision THAs completed at our academic institution between 2005 and 2015 through our total joint registry. Thirty-nine percent were isolated acetabular revisions, 22% isolated femoral revisions, 18% both component revisions, and 21% head/liner component exchanges. The mean age at index revision THA was 66 years, and 46% were male. The indications for the index revision THA were aseptic loosening (21% acetabular, 15% femoral, 5% both components), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (18%), instability (13%), fracture (11%), and other (17%). Mean follow-up was 6 years.

RESULTS

There were 211 re-revision THAs during the study period. The overall survivorship free of any re-revision at 2, 5, and 10 years was 94%, 92%, and 88%, respectively. The most common reasons for re-revision were hip instability (52%), peri-prosthetic fracture (11%), femoral aseptic loosening (11%), acetabular aseptic loosening (9%), infection (6%), polyethylene wear (3%), and other (8%).

CONCLUSION

Compared to historical series, the 88% survivorship free of any re-revision at 10 years in a revision cohort at a referral center is notably improved. As implant fixation has improved, aseptic loosening has become much less common after revision THA, and instability has come to account for more than half of re-revisions.

Effect of changing femoral head diameter on bony and prosthetic jumping angles

BACKGROUND

In THA, using a larger femoral head can increase the oscillation angle and jumping distance. However, there have been no reports which indicate precisely how increasing the jumping distance leads to an increase in the angle from impingement to dislocation (jumping angle). In this study, we clarified the jumping angle of various head diameters and its relationship with pelvic morphology.

METHODS

Using a three-dimensional templating system, virtual THA and ROM simulations were performed in 82 patients. We investigated the distance between bony and prosthetic impingement points and the head centre and calculated the jumping angle for various head diameters. We measured various pelvic shapes and length to clarify the relationship between pelvic morphology and impingement distance.

RESULTS

Jumping angles were 7.7° ± 3.2°, 12.1° ± 1.6°, 15.4° ± 2.5° and 10.0° ± 3.0° with flexion, internal rotation with 90° flexion (IR), extension and external rotation (ER), respectively, when we used a 22-mm head diameter. Bony jumping angle increased about 0.5°, 0.8°, 1.0° and 0.7° per 2-mm increase in head diameter with flexion, IR, extension and ER. On the other hand, prosthetic jumping angle remained almost stable at about 31°. Impingement distance was related to pelvic morphology in all directions. Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. On the other hand, bony jumping angle was less than prosthetic jumping angle in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Bony jumping angles differed with ROM; the biggest was seen with extension, followed by IR, ER and flexion. Prosthetic impingement angles were stable. In addition, the bony jumping angle was less than the prosthetic jumping angle in all cases.

Dual mobility acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty: advantages and drawbacks

INTRODUCTION

The dual mobility cup (DMC) concept was proposed by Professor Gilles Bousquet in 1974. Its' aims were to prevent postoperative dislocation, restore the physiological range of motion of the hip, and reduce the stresses at the interface. Since it was created, this design has been modified multiple times to reduce the complication rate, improve implant survival, and expand the indications.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of this review is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this implant based on its 40-year history and also to propose a range of indications based on published results. This will provide surgeons with a complete overview of DMC.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Published studies on DMC confirm the low dislocation rate. Improvements made to DMC overtime have greatly reduced the complications related to wear, such as aseptic loosening and intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD). According to the literature, the indications have expanded and are no longer limited to revision surgery only. Long-term studies are needed before we can draw formal conclusions and consolidate these promising results.

Cementation of a Dual Mobility Construct in Recurrently Dislocating and High Risk Patients Undergoing Revision Total Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Recurrent instability remains a challenge after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the outcomes of cementing a cementless dual mobility (DM) component into a stable acetabular shell for the treatment and/or prevention of instability in revision THA.

METHODS

Eighteen patients (18 THAs) undergoing revision THA with a specific monoblock DM construct cemented into a new acetabular component or an existing well-fixed component from 2011 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Tumor prostheses and total femoral replacements were excluded. In 9 patients (50%), components were implanted specifically for recurrent dislocations. Mean age was 64 years; mean follow-up was 3 years. Patients underwent an average of 4 prior hip operations (range 2-6).

RESULTS

No cemented DM cups dissociated at the cement-cup interface. Three patients (17%) experienced a postoperative dislocation. One required a revision to constrained liner and 2 underwent open reduction with retention of the DM construct. Harris Hip Scores improved from 53 to 82 postoperatively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Cementation of a monoblock cup DM construct, an off-label use as the construct is not specifically made for cementation, into a well-fixed acetabular component provides an alternative to enhance prosthetic stability in (1) recurrently dislocating THAs with well fixed, well-positioned acetabular components and (2) complex acetabular reconstructions in which constraint should be avoided. While not a perfect solution in this series, DM constructs provide a number of advantages including no added constraint at the interface and a large effective femoral head to diminish prosthetic impingement.

Otto Aufranc Award: Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA Reduced Dislocation, Rerevision, and Reoperation Compared With Large Femoral Heads

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral heads (ie, 40 mm) are two contemporary, nonconstrained bearing options used in revision THA to minimize the risk of dislocation; however, it is not currently established if there is a clear benefit to using dual-mobility constructs over large femoral heads in the revision setting.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to determine if dual-mobility constructs would provide a reduction in dislocation, rerevision for dislocation, and reoperation or other complications as compared with large femoral heads in revision THA.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2014, a series of 355 THAs underwent revision for any reason and received either a dual-mobility construct (146 THAs) or a 40-mm large femoral head (209 THAs). Indications for either construct were based on surgeon judgment; however, there is a preference to use dual-mobility constructs in patients believed to be at higher risk of dislocation. In the dual-mobility group, 20 of 146 (14%) were excluded because of loss of followup before 2 years or because they had a dual-mobility shell cemented into a preexisting acetabular component. In the large head group, 33 of 209 (16%) were lost to followup before 2 years. Followup in the dual-mobility group was 3.3 ± 0.8 years and followup in the large head group was 3.9 ± 0.9 years. Primary endpoints included dislocation, rerevisions for dislocation, and reoperations, which were determined through our institution's total joint registry and verified by individual patient chart review. Age and body mass index were not different with the numbers available between the groups, but there was a slight predominance of females in the dual-mobility group (52% [66 of 126] female) versus the 40-mm large head group (41% [72 of 176] female) (p = 0.05). Notably, 33% (41 of 126) of patients receiving the dual-mobility constructs had the index revision THA done for a diagnosis of recurrent dislocation versus 9% (17 of 176) in the 40-mm large head group. Mean effective head size in the dual-mobility group was 47 mm (range, 38-58 mm).

RESULTS

The subsequent frequency of dislocation in the dual-mobility construct group was less (3% [four of 126] dual-mobility versus 10% [17 of 176] in the 40-mm large head group; hazard ratio, 3.2 [1.1-9.4]; p = 0.03). Rerevision for dislocation in the dual-mobility construct group was less frequent (1% [one of 126] dual-mobility versus 6% [10 of 176] in the 40-mm large head group; hazard ratio, 7.1 [0.9-55.6]; p = 0.03). Reoperation for any cause in the dual-mobility construct group was less frequent (6% [eight of 126] dual-mobility versus 15% [27 of 176] in the 40-mm large head group; hazard ratio, 2.5 [1.1-5.5]; p = 0.02); there were no differences between the groups in terms of the overall percentage of complications in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with patients treated with a 40-mm large femoral head, patients undergoing revision THA who received a dual-mobility construct had a lower risk of subsequent dislocation, rerevision for dislocation, and reoperation for any reason in the first several years postoperatively. Those findings were present despite selection bias in this study to use the dual-mobility construct in patients at the highest risk for subsequent dislocation. Given the lower risk of subsequent dislocation, rerevision, and reoperation with the dual-mobility construct, some surgeons may wish to consider whether the role of dual-mobility should be judiciously expanded in contemporary revision THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Can Dislocation of a Constrained Liner Be Salvaged With Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA?

BACKGROUND

Revision THA to treat recurrent instability can itself be complicated by recurrent instability, and when this occurs, this problem is difficult to treat. Some patients' THAs will continue to dislocate despite use of a constrained liner. One option in this difficult-to-treat group is conversion to a dual-mobility (DM) construct, but there are few data on this approach.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What were the Harris hip scores in a small group of patients whose constrained liners were converted to DM constructs to treat recurrent dislocation? (2) What were the redislocation, rerevision, and DM construct retention rates in these patients?

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a longitudinally maintained institutional database maintained by individuals other than the treating surgeons to identify patients undergoing conversion of constrained liners to DM constructs in revision THA from 2011 to 2014. We identified 16 patients who underwent revision of dislocated constrained liners to DM constructs. Two patients died before 2-year followup, leaving 14 patients available for followup at a minimum of 24 months and a median of 37 months (range, 24-71 months). Indications for conversion to DM constructs included patients with dislocation of multiple prior constrained liners, patients with at least partial abductor functioning and soft tissue tensioning, and patients at very high risk for recurrent instability as an alternative to resection arthroplasty. Ten patients (10 of 14) underwent DM conversion at the time of cup revision, whereas four patients (four of 14) had a DM construct cemented into a preexisting cup. Median age was 65 years (range, 53-93 years). Median number of prior hip surgeries was five (range, three to 10) and seven patients (seven of 14) had dislocated more than one constrained liner.

RESULTS

Harris hip score improved from a median of 57 (range, 55-67) to 84 (range, 68-96) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Three patients (three of 14) experienced a redislocation. Two (two of 14) of these patients were closed reduced and treated successfully nonoperatively; one (one of 14) patient experienced an intraprosthetic dislocation and underwent modular exchange. One patient (one of 14) underwent early resection arthroplasty for acetabular loosening after complex acetabular reconstruction. Overall, all other patients (13 of 14) retained a DM construct at final followup.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to a DM construct shows promise as a salvage option in high-risk, multiply operated on patients with dislocated constrained liners undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability. The ability to close reduce a dislocated DM construct is a distinct advantage over constrained liners. However, longer followup is required given that three of 14 redislocated, and one of those underwent revision for persistent instability at short-term followup.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty

Aims

Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra-articular dislocation.

Results

For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extra-articular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all-cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2).

Conclusion

Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High-quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:11–19.

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility implants are subject to a specific implant-related complication, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), in which the polyethylene liner dissociates from the femoral head. For older generation designs, IPD was attributable to late polyethylene wear and subsequent failure of the head capture mechanism. However, early IPDs have been reportedly affecting contemporary designs.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and August 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "intraprosthetic dislocation," "dual mobility," "dual-mobility," "tripolar," "double mobility," "double-mobility," "hip," "cup," "socket," and "dislocation."

RESULTS

In all, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen were case reports and 2 were retrospective case series. These included a total of 19 total hip arthroplasties, which were divided into 2 groups: studies dealing with early IPD after attempted closed reduction and those dealing with early IPD with no history of previous attempted closed reduction. Early IPD was reported in 15 patients after a mean follow-up of 3.2 months (2.9 SD) in the first group and in 4 patients after a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (9.9 SD) in the second group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current data, most cases have been preceded by an attempted closed reduction in the setting of outer, large articulation dislocation, perhaps indicating an iatrogenic etiology for early IPD. Recognition of this possible failure mode is essential to its prevention and treatment.

Increase in safe zone area of the acetabular cup using dual mobility cups in THA

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility cup (DMC) inserts reduce the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). No available research has clearly delineated stability advantages of DMC inserts in primary and revision THA. We investigated: (i) the degree of change in the safe zone of the cup when a DMC insert is used compared to a fixed insert; (ii) the method of selecting candidates for a DMC insert without changing the position of the acetabular (cup) component during revision THA in frequent dislocation cases caused by implant impingement.

METHODS

A model of the pelvis and femur was developed from computed tomography images. The safe zone was defined as the area in the acetabular component, over which conditions for stable range of motion were satisfied. The safe zone was calculated for both a fixed and a DMC insert over a predetermined range of 3-D motion, and the effect of increasing the anteversion position of the femoral component from 5° to 35° was quantified.

RESULTS

The lowest ratio of the area of the safe zone was about 4.9 at 20° anteverison of the femoral component. Safe zone of DMC inserts zone had increased stability of 10°-15° in both vertical and horizontal directions, compared to fixed inserts.A 5- to10-fold expansion of the safe zone can be expected with the use of DMC insert.

CONCLUSIONS

DMC insert could help to set the acetabular component more accurately in primary and revision THA.

Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties After Solid Organ Transplant

BACKGROUND

As solid organ transplant (SOT) patients' survival improves, the number undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing. Accordingly, the number of revision procedures in this higher-risk group is also increasing. The goals of this study were to identify the most common failure mechanisms, associated complications, clinical outcomes, and patient survivorship of SOT patients after revision THA or TKA.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified 39 revision procedures (30 revision THAs and 9 revision TKAs) completed in 37 SOT patients between 2000 and 2013. The mean age at revision surgery was 62 years with a mean follow-up of 6 years.

RESULTS

The most common failure mode for revision THA was aseptic loosening (10/30, 33%), followed by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; 7/30, 23%). The most common failure mode for revision TKA was PJI (5/9, 56%). There were 6 re-revision THAs for PJI (3/30; 10%) and instability (3/30; 10%). There were 2 reoperations after revision TKA, both for acute PJI (2/9; 22%). Final Harris Hip Scores significantly (P = .03) improved as did Knee Society Scores (P = .01). Estimated survivorship free from mortality at 5 and 10 years was 71% and 60% after revision THA and 65% and 21% after revision TKA, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Revision THA and TKA after solid organ transplantation carry considerable risk for re-revision, particularly for PJI. Although SOT recipients demonstrate improved clinical function after revision procedures, patient survivorship at mid- to long-term follow-up is low.

Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA

Dislocation remains a common cause of failure after total hip arthroplasty. The limitations of existing approaches to address instability have led to the development of powerfull options: constrained liners, dual mobility and large heads. These implant-related options have proven to be very efficient, but have raised concerns.With constrained liners, restricted range of motion (ROM) is responsible for impingement leading to high likelihood of failure, depending on the design, with various failure modes.Improvements of the bearing materials have addressed some of the concerns about increased volumetric wear of conventional polyethylene and offer an option to reduce instability: large diameter heads have the advantage of increased ROM before impingement, increased head-neck ratio, and jump distance. Highly cross-linked polyethylene helps address the risk for increased wear, and also large heads provide improved stability without the risk of mechanical failures observed with constrained liners. However, the increase of the head size remains limited as reducing the thickness of the liner may lead to fractures. In addition, the jump distance decreases as the cup abduction increases.The dual mobility concept simultaneously attempts to address head-neck ratio, constraint, and jump distance. Despite the need for longer follow-up, concerns raised about potential increased wear and intra-prosthetic dislocation with first generation implants have been addressed with modern designs.With a dramatic increase of the head-neck ratio whilst reducing the risk of mechanical failure or excessive wear, dual mobility THA outperforms large diameter heads and constrained liners at 10 years follow-up. For these reasons, dual mobility continues to gain interest worldwide and is becoming the most popular option to manage instability. Cite this article: Guyen O. Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:197-204. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000054.

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review was to report the rate of dislocation following the use of dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase (Scopus) was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and March 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "dual mobility", "dual-mobility", "tripolar", "double-mobility", "double mobility", "hip", "cup", "socket". The following data were extracted by two investigators independently: demographics, whether the operation was a primary or revision THA, length of follow-up, the design of the components, diameter of the femoral head, and type of fixation of the acetabular component.

RESULTS

In all, 59 articles met our inclusion criteria. These included a total of 17 908 THAs which were divided into two groups: studies dealing with DM components in primary THA and those dealing with these components in revision THA. The mean rate of dislocation was 0.9% in the primary THA group, and 3.0% in the revision THA group. The mean rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.7% in primary and 1.3% in revision THAs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current data, the use of DM acetabular components are effective in minimising the risk of instability after both primary and revision THA. This benefit must be balanced against continuing concerns about the additional modularity, and the new mode of failure of intraprosthetic dislocation. Longer term studies are needed to assess the function of these newer materials compared with previous generations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):18-24.

Total hip arthroplasty using a cementless dual-mobility cup provides increased stability and favorable gait parameters at five years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Rates of dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) vary from 0.5 to 10%. Dual-mobility cups in THA demonstrate increased stability. Clinical outcomes following THA with dual-mobility cups have been reported, but gait has not been assessed. Therefore we performed a retrospective case control study to answer: (1) is gait better in patients following THA with a dual-mobility cup than in frail, elderly patients of the same age? (2) Are clinical outcomes better in patients following THA with a dual-mobility cup than in frail, elderly patients? (3) What is the dislocation rate following THA with a dual-mobility cup?

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that patients who underwent THA with a dual-mobility cup have a better gait compared to frail, elderly patients of the same age.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty patients (22 hips), mean age 79.9±7.7 (range, 62.3-88.3) years were assessed in this retrospective case-control series 5.6±1.4 (range: 4.1-8.8) years following dual-mobility cup THA. A reference group consisted of 72 "frail elderly" patients in a rehabilitation hospital for health problems unrelated to the lower limb, with no lower limb surgery or neurological conditions. Temporal and spatial gait performance were measured with four miniature gyroscopes, mounted on each thigh and calf, while patients walked freely along a 30m corridor. Harris Hip Score, WOMAC, radiological outcomes, and dislocation rate were determined.

RESULTS

All gait parameters were better in the dual-mobility group compared to the frail elderly group. The dual-mobility group had a higher cadence (100.3 steps/minute versus 75.6 steps/minute), shorter (relative to gait cycle time) stance (61.6% versus 67.8%), shorter (relative to gait cycle time) double stance (23.3% versus 36.0%), longer stride (1.13m versus 0.80m), and faster walking speed (0.96m/s versus 0.52m/s). Range of motion of the shank, thigh and knee were better in the dual-mobility group. Harris Hip Score was 87.6±13.9 (range 51-100) and WOMAC score was 11.3±12.1 (range 0-34) in the THA group. We observed no dislocations.

DISCUSSION

Gait patterns five years following THA with the dual-mobility cup were better or comparable to published study populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective case-control series.

[Use of dual mobility cups for revision hip arthroplasty]

The dual mobility cup (DMC) is an increasingly important tool not only in primary but also in revision total hip arthroplasty to prevent dislocation and eventually reduce postoperative complication rates. Various studies have shown survival rates with DMCs of up to 100% with an average dislocation rate of less than 1.5% after primary hip arthroplasty and a follow-up of 10 years. In revision surgery, survival rates of up to 99% were reported with dislocation rates between 0 and 10% after an average of 5 years after implantation. This article is intended to provide an overview of the principle and function of DMCs. Furthermore, indications as well as complications are presented.

All dual mobility cups are not the same

PURPOSE

Although the natural history of dual mobility has been exclusively borne for 20 years by a single company (due to industrial ownership), the concept has undeniably been very widely popularised with nearly 40 cups on the French market which should be regarded as a weight bearing surface, both broadly and in their own right. However, within the same original idea, these implants are not all identical (design, material, fixation ect.).The aim of this work is to propose a classification of different dual mobility cups by distinguishing between thegeneral characteristics of a conventional cup and those particular to this type of implant.

METHODS

By comparison with a standard metal-back cup, dual mobility is based on at least one additional interface corresponding to the mobility of the polyethylene insert in the concavity of the acetabular cup called the outersurface. Design, constitutive material, fixation of the cup and characteristics of the retentive insert are analysed through the published results.

RESULTS

The complications associated, in particular, the intraprosthetic dislocation and to a lesser extent fixation failures undoubtedly condemned the dissemination of the dual mobility concept, as witnessed by the fact that despite the precedence of this 40-year old concept, the overriding majority of publications (more than 95%) have only appeared in the last ten years.

CONCLUSION

The latest generation of dual mobility cups combines: 1) a cast chrome-cobalt alloy cup covered with a bilayer coating of porous titanium and hydroxyapatite for long-term press-fit fixation to 2) an insert designed to eliminate all of the risks of intraprosthetic dislocation, whilst keeping all of the elasticity properties of the polyethylene, which has demonstrated its medium and long term effectiveness on preventing instability by overcoming other complications.

The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Instability following total hip arthroplasty remains a common and disabling complication. The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. An increasing number of studies have been undertaken to better understand DMC long term outcomes and complications. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify its different uses and outcomes according to the indications.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed using the keywords 'dual mobility' and 'tripolar cup' with no limit regarding the year of publication. One hundred seventy six publications were identified.

RESULTS

Current literature shows that "contemporary" dual mobility cup are a significant indication to manage instability following primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Survivorship at midterm is comparable to other articulations for primary THA, but is more difficult to evaluate in revision. Intra-prosthetic dislocation, wear, and loosening are now uncommon with new generations of DMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous generations of DMC, the current "contemporary" DMC presents a significant improvement. Current literature reveals a tendency to increase the indications but further studies with long term follow up remain important to consolidate these findings.

Midterm Survivorship of the Lefèvre Constrained Liner: A Consecutive Multisurgeon Series of 166 Cases

BACKGROUND

Constrained liners are used as part of a salvage procedure to provide stability for patients at high risk for dislocation after a total hip arthroplasty. However, no recent studies exist highlighting their effectiveness and/or limitations.

METHOD

This prospective review included 166 consecutive hip arthroplasties, either primary (27%) or revision (73%), with a unique design of a constrained liner: Lefèvre retentive cup. There were 113 females (69%), and the average age at index surgery was 75.9 years (range, 35-94). The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (range, 0.3-11).

RESULTS

Twenty patients had a reoperation; 10 for infection (4 acute and 6 chronic joint infection) and 10 for cup failure (5 fixation failure, 3 aseptic loosening, and 2 dislocation). Ten-year survivals for cup revision were 89% (CI, 83-94) and 92% (CI, 89-97) for all revision and revision for noninfectious reasons, respectively. When solely evaluating for dislocation, the survival at 10 years was 99% (CI, 97-100). Considering primary and revision cases, 10-year survivals cup revision for aseptic reasons were 92.4% (CI, 84-100) and 92.5% (CI, 87-98), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Lefèvre retentive cup demonstrated excellent 10-year's survivorship. With the rate of aseptic loosening around 2% and a dislocation rate around 1%, the cup is as effective as other available devices and is therefore a cost-effective tool to reduce the risk of dislocation in at-risk patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.