Dual mobility cup in hip arthroplasty: an in-depth analysis of joint registries

The Avantage ® dual mobility cup in primary total hip arthroplasty: A registry study

Background

Avantage Cup has been widely used in dual mobility implants. However, in Swedish Registry, the outcome of the Avantage Cup is reported with higher implants revision compared to control. The aim of our study was to verify if the same results are present in the Registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implants (RIPO) of Emilia Romagna (ER, Italy), as the Avantage cup was the most implanted dual mobility cup for a long follow-up reported in this Registry (2000-2012). Furthermore, we assessed the survival rate of the implant over the time.

Methods

We included all patients that underwent a primary THA using the Avantage cup during the period 2000-2020 in RIPO Registry. The survivorship of the primary THA implants was calculated and plotted according to Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

886 Avantage cups were included in the analysis. During the observational period 44 hips were revised. The most common reasons for revision were: periprosthetic fractures (PPF) (n = 7, 0.8 %), deep infection (n = 7, 0.8 %), and cup aseptic loosening (n = 13, 1.5 %).The survival rate of the implant was 96.8 % (95.3-97.8) at 5 years, 95.7 at 10 years (94.0-97.0) and 92.1 at 15 years (88.5-94.6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the Avantage cup in primary hip arthroplasty implanted with a "friendly" femoral stem granted satisfactory long-term survival. Therefore, in the Swedish Registry, the cause of the poor results presented for Avantage Cup could be the thick, rough neck stem of the widely used Lubinus stem.

Femoral Neck Design Does Not Impact Revision Risk After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Dual Mobility Cup

Background

The use of dual mobility (DM) cups has increased quickly. It is hypothesized that femoral neck taper geometry may be involved in the risk of prosthetic impingement and DM cup revision. We aim to (1) explore the reasons for revision of DM cups or head/liners and (2) explore whether certain femoral neck characteristics are associated with a higher risk of revision of DM cups.

Methods

Primary total hip arthroplasties with a DM cup registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register between 2007 and 2021 were identified (n = 7603). Competing risk survival analyses were performed, with acetabular component and head/liner revision as the primary endpoint. Reasons for revision were categorized in cup-/liner-related revisions (dislocation, liner wear, acetabular loosening). Femoral neck characteristics were studied to assess whether there is an association between femoral neck design and the risk of DM cup/liner revision. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed.

Results

The 5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of DM cup or head/liner revision for dislocation, wear, and acetabular loosening was 0.5% (CI 0.4-0.8) and 1.9% (CI 1.3-2.8), respectively. After adjusting for confounders, we found no association between the examined femoral neck characteristics (alloy used, neck geometry, CCD angle, and surface roughness) and the risk for revision for dislocation, wear, and acetabular loosening.

Conclusions

The risk of DM cup or head/liner revision for dislocation, wear, and acetabular loosening was low. We found no evidence that there is an association between femoral neck design and the risk of cup or head/liner revision.

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.

Comparing dislocation rates by approach following elective primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility components can be implanted during total hip arthroplasty (THA) for primary osteoarthritis via a direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA), or posterior/posterolateral approach (PLA). This review compares dual mobility hip dislocation rates using these approaches for elective primary THA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for articles published after January 1, 2006 that reported dislocation rates for adult patients after primary THA with dual mobility implants. Articles were excluded if they reported revision procedures, nonelective THA for femoral neck fractures, acetabular defects requiring supplemental implants, prior surgery, or ≤ 5 patients. The primary outcome was hip dislocation rate. Secondary outcomes included infection, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score.

RESULTS

After screening 542 articles, 63 met inclusion criteria. Due to study heterogeneity, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported DAA, 5 reported ALA, 6 reported the DLA, and 56 reported PLA. Study size ranged from 41 to 2,601 patients. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 25 years. Rates of infection and dislocation were low; 80% of ALA, 87.5% of DAA, 100% of DLA, and 82.1% of PLA studies reported zero postoperative dislocations. Studies reporting postoperative HHS and PMA scores showed considerable improvement for all approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary THA with dual mobility implants rarely experience postoperative dislocation, regardless of surgical approach. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to confirm these findings.

The Role of Dual-Mobility Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty

➤

Dual mobility (DM) refers to a now widely available option for total hip articulation. DM implants feature a small inner head, a hard bearing, that connects via a taper fit onto the femoral trunnion. This head freely rotates but is encased inside a larger, outer polyethylene head that articulates with a smooth acetabular component.

➤

DM acetabular components are available in the form of a monoblock shell or as a liner that is impacted into a modular shell, providing a metal articulation for the polyethylene outer head.

➤

DM is designed to increase hip stability by providing the arthroplasty construct with a higher jump distance, head-to-neck ratio, and range of motion prior to impingement.

➤

The use of DM in total hip arthroplasty continues to increase in the United States for both primary and revision arthroplasty. Surgeons should be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls.

➤

Long-term data are lacking, especially for modular DM implants. Points of concern include a potential for accelerated polyethylene wear, intraprosthetic dislocation, and modular backside fretting corrosion.

No dislocation and low complication rate for a modern dual mobility cup with pre-impacted femoral head in primary hip replacement: A consecutive series of 175 hips at minimum 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Despite its excellent results in preventing dislocation, the dual mobility cup (DMC) is still struggling to be adopted by some teams due to premature wear and loosening reported on first-generation implants. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the mid-term survivorship of a modern DMC with a pre-impacted head and the radio-clinical results at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study performed on patients who had a primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in 2016. The cup was a third-generation DMC with a pre-impacted femoral head. Clinical (harris hip score (HHS)) and radiological (cup abduction, anteversion, overhang, and radiolucent lines) results were recorded, as well as complications, particularly dislocations and survivorship. A minimum of five years of follow-ups was required.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five hips (167 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Five hips (2.9%, 5/175) were lost to follow-up and excluded from the postoperative analysis. The mean follow-up period was 70 ± 2.9 months [63.6-76.5]. Three cups needed revision surgery (1.8%, 3/170): one for septic loosening, and two for chronic infection. At 77 months, the global survival probability was 98.2% ± 1, and the survival probability excluding septic aetiology was 100%. There was a significant improvement in the HHS from pre-operatively (48.3 ± 6.0 [14.0-70.0]) to post-operatively (96 ± 4.5 [50-100]) (p < 0.0001). There were no postoperative dislocations recorded, nor any iliopsoas-impingement or symptomatic cam-effect.

DISCUSSION

This study showed excellent survival and good radiological and clinical results of this dual mobility cup at a mid-term follow-up. None of the patients had dislocation or any specific complication feared with dual mobility cups.

Intraprosthetic Dislocation of Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Unforeseen Complication

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful and widely accepted orthopedic procedures. Instability after THA is one of the most significant postoperative complications. Dual-mobility THA components were introduced in 1974 to overcome the risk of instability by increasing the jump distance. Dual-mobility bearings couple two articulations, namely, one between a 22-28 mm prosthetic head and polyethylene liner and another larger articulation between the polyethylene liner and the metal cup. Dislocation of the polyethylene liner and the consequent direct articulation between the prosthetic head and metal cup is recognized as intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD). This mode of THA failure is specific to dual-mobility implants. Despite the reduced incidence of IPD in modern dual-mobility implants compared to the early designs, iatrogenic IPD can occur during closed reduction of dislocated polyethylene liner-metal cup articulation. IPD requires timely diagnosis and early surgical intervention to minimize the necessity of major revision surgeries. This study presents a comprehensive review for dual-mobility-bearing THA, including the history and biomechanics, and focuses on the pathomechanics, diagnosis, and management of IPD.