Acetabular revision using a press-fit dual mobility cup

Monobloc press-fit cups with large-diameter bearings are safe in revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability is a major cause of failure of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) which can be avoided with the use of monobloc press-fit cups with large diameter heads (LDH).

OBJECTIVE

This consecutive case series analyses whether LDH monobloc components are a safe and clinically beneficial option for revision THA.

METHODS

This consecutive case series includes 47 revision THA with LDH monobloc acetabular cup. Acetabular bone defects were Paprosky type I (42), type IIA (2) and type IIC (3). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and the Patient's Joint Perception (PJP) scores were analysed and a radiographic evaluation for signs of implant dysfunction was performed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, there were 5 (10.6%) acetabular cup re-revisions: 2 loss of primary fixation and 3 instabilities. Implant survivorship at 4-years was 89.4% (95% CI: 89.3 to 89.5). Recurrent hip dislocation was reported in 1 patient (2.1%) and remains under conservative treatment. The mean WOMAC and FJS were 19.5 (16.8; 0.0 to 58.3) and 57.3 (28.9; 6.3 to 100.0), respectively. Regarding the PJP, 3 (8.8%) patients perceived their hip as natural, 8 (23.5%) as an artificial joint with no restriction, 14 (41.2%) with minor restriction and 9 (26.5%) with major restriction.

CONCLUSION

In cases of revision THA with limited bone loss, press-fit primary fixation with LDH monobloc acetabular components are valuable options that offer excellent mid-term out-comes with low re-revision and joint instability rates.

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.

Comparison of dual mobility cup and other surgical construts used for three hundred and sixty two first time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations: five year results from Lithuanian arthroplasty register

PURPOSE

Recently, there has been increasing interest in the use of dual mobility systems in the treatment of hip instability. The aim of this study was to investigate the re-revision rate of dual mobility cup compared to different surgical concepts when used for first-time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations.

METHODS

The data were derived from the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register. For survival analysis, we used both re-revision for all reasons and for dislocations as an end-point. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the influence of various covariates (age, gender, and implant concept).

RESULTS

A total of 1388 revisions were recorded from 2011 to 2015, of which 362 were performed due to recurrent dislocation. Of the revisions, 247 were performed using dual mobility cups, while 115 were performed using a variety of other surgical constructs including constrained acetabular cups, conventional cups, femoral head exchanges, stem exchanges or anti-luxation rings. There were 27 re-revisions of which 15 were for additional dislocations. There were only 2% re-revisions due to dislocation with dual mobility vs 9% when using other surgical constructs. Cox regression adjusting for age and gender showed that in the short-term, dual mobility cup had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation as well as for all reasons compared to the other surgical constructs.

CONCLUSION

In revision of total hip arthroplasties for dislocation, significantly lower short-term re-revision rate was observed for patients revised with dual mobility cup.

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.

[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.

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.

Dual mobility total hip replacement in a high risk population

Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate results of dual mobility total replacement in a high risk population who take hip into hyperflexed position while sitting and praying on the floor.

Method: The study included 65 (35 primary total replacement and 30 complex total hip replacement) cases of total hip replacement using avantage privilege dual mobility cup system from biomet. A cemented acetabular component and on femoral side a bimetric stem, either cemented or uncemented used depending on the canal type. Ten cases were examined fluoroscopically in follow up.

Result: There was dislocation in one patient undergoing complex hip replacement. Fluoroscopy study showed no impingement between the neck of prosthesis and acetabular shell at extremes of all movements.

Conclusion: The prevalence of dislocation is low in our high risk population and we consider it preferred concept for patients undergoing complex total hip replacement.

Dual mobility acetabular component in revision total hip arthroplasty for persistent dislocation: no dislocations in 50 hips after 1-5 years

Background

A dual mobility cup has the theoretic potential to improve stability in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and mid-term cohort results are favorable. We hypothesized that use of a new-generation dual mobility cup in revision arthroplasty prevents dislocation in patients with a history of recurrent dislocation of the THA.

Materials and methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving an isolated acetabular revision with a dual mobility cup for recurrent dislocation of the prosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were performed with dislocation as a primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as a secondary endpoint.

Results

Forty-nine consecutive patients (50 hips) were included; none of the patients was lost to follow-up. The median follow-up was 29 months (range 12–66 months). Two patients died from unrelated causes. Survival after 56 months was 100 % based on dislocation and 93 % (95 % CI 79–98 %) based on re-revision for any reason. Radiologic analysis revealed no osteolysis or radiolucent lines around the acetabular component during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The dual mobility cup is an efficient solution for instability of THA with a favorable implant survival at 56 months.

Level of evidence

Level 4, retrospective case series.

A dual-mobility cup reduces risk of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions

BACKGROUND

Isolated acetabular revisions using standard cups are at risk of dislocation. The introduction of a nonconstrained dual-mobility cup was designed to improve prosthetic stability without increasing loosening rates, but it is unclear whether the risk of dislocation is reduced.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore determined: (1) if the rate of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions is lower with a dual-mobility cup, (2) implant survival, (3) patient function, and (4) radiographic incidence of migration, loosening, and osteolysis.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 33 selected patients who underwent isolated acetabular revisions with a minimum of 2 years' followup (mean, 3 years; range, 2-5 years). In 24 patients a stainless steel dual-mobility cup was cemented into an antiprotrusio cage, whereas in nine we used a hyaluronan dual-mobility revision cup with a foramen hook and superior and posterior flanges screw fixations. We determined Harris hip (HHS) and WOMAC scores and examined radiographs for migration, loosening, and osteolysis.

RESULTS

There were no dislocations. Survivorship rates of the femoral and acetabular components were 97% at 5 years; the rerevision rate for any reason was 3%. At last followup, the mean HHS increased from 48 points preoperatively to 86 points. No patients had progressive osteolysis, component migration, or loosening on radiographs.

CONCLUSION

In this select group of isolated acetabular revisions, our data suggest the use of a dual-mobility cup reduced the risk of dislocation without increasing loosening from 2 to 5 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation: 228 patients from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to recurrent dislocations is associated with a high risk of persistent instability. We hypothesized that the use of dual-mobility cups would reduce the risk of re-revision due to dislocation after revision THA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

228 THA cup revisions (in 228 patients) performed due to recurrent dislocations and employing a specific dual-mobility cup (Avantage) were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with re-revision due to dislocation as the primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as the secondary endpoint. Cox regression models were fitted in order to calculate the influence of various covariates on the risk of re-revision.

RESULTS

58 patients (25%) had been revised at least once prior to the index cup revision. The surgical approach at the index cup revision was lateral in 99 cases (44%) and posterior in 124 cases (56%). Median follow-up was 2 (0-6) years after the index cup revision, and by then 18 patients (8%) had been re-revised for any reason. Of these, 4 patients (2%) had been re-revised due to dislocation. Survival after 2 years with the endpoint revision of any component due to dislocation was 99% (95% CI: 97-100), and it was 93% (CI: 90-97) with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason. Risk factors for subsequent re-revision for any reason were age between 50-59 years at the time of the index cup revision (risk ratio (RR) = 5 when compared with age > 75, CI: 1-23) and previous revision surgery to the relevant joint (RR = 1.7 per previous revision, CI: 1-3).

INTERPRETATION

The risk of re-revision due to dislocation after insertion of dual-mobility cups during revision THA performed for recurrent dislocations appears to be low in the short term. Since most dislocations occur early after revision THA, we believe that this device adequately addresses the problem of recurrent instability. Younger age and prior hip revision surgery are risk factors for further revision surgery. However, problems such as potentially increased liner wear and subsequent aseptic loosening may be associated with the use of such devices in the long term.

Biomechanical concept and clinical outcome of dual mobility cups

Dual mobility cup systems in total hip arthroplasty consist of a metal back with a non-constrained liner, in which a constrained standard head articulates. While superior stability of such implants in comparison with standard total hip replacements is assumed, it is the purpose of this study to outline the biomechanical concept of dual mobility cups and to describe implant survival and dislocation rate based on the series published in the English-speaking and Francophone literature. A growing body of evidence indicates reduced dislocation rates in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty and in selected tumour cases. The limited availability of studies evaluating long-term implant survival and existing concerns with regard to increased wear rates and aseptic loosening, leads to the conclusion that such implants have to be used with prudence, particularly in standard primary hip arthroplasty and in young patients.