Trilogy-constrained acetabular component for recurrent dislocation

Monobloc Dual Mobility With a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up: A Safe and Effective Solution in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability constitutes over 20% of revisions after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) designs were introduced as a solution to this problem. However, the few publications that have reported promising results for monobloc DM constructs have been limited by sample size or length of follow-up. The purpose of this study is to evaluate mid-term outcomes (minimum 5-year follow-up) of a single-surgeon series utilizing a monobloc DM acetabular component in patients with high risk for dislocation.

METHODS

This is a single-surgeon consecutive series of 207 primary THAs implanted with a monobloc DM component in patients who were considered at high risk for dislocation. Patient demographics and case-specific data were collected retrospectively. All patients had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess continuous variables, whereas categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test. Survival probability was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Radiographic analysis did not reveal acetabular radiolucency in any patients, and there were no revisions for aseptic loosening. In addition, there were no dislocations. Seven of 205 patients (3.4%) were revised, 5 on the femoral side due to periprosthetic fracture and the remaining two for infection. Survivorship of the acetabular component from revision was 99%. The mean Veteran RAND (VR-12) physical score improved from 7 (standard deviation [SD]: 13.7) preoperatively to 9.5 (SD: 17.6) at the final follow-up. Similarly, the hip disability osteoarthritis score improved from 8 (SD: 17.9) preoperatively to 21.2 (SD: 37).

CONCLUSION

Monobloc DM components reliably prevent dislocation after primary THA in high-risk patients. At mid-term follow-up, this DM monobloc component demonstrates excellent implant survivorship, radiographic fixation, and improved functional outcomes.

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.

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.

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for re-dislocation after revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The treatment for recurrent dislocation of a total hip arthroplasty is surgical using varied techniques and technologies to reduce the chances of re-dislocation and re-revision. The goal of this study is to compare operative techniques to reduce re-dislocation and re-revision in revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations.

METHODS

A retrospective study of revision hip arthroplasties done due to recurrent dislocation prior to 01 January 2014. Electronic physician and provincial health records were used to collect patients' initial and follow-up data. Treatment failure was defined as either aseptic re-revision or re-dislocation without revision. Time to event was considered as the re-revision date or the date of second dislocation when the latter endpoint was used.

RESULTS

Of 379 operations, 88 (23.2%) had aseptic repeat revision or recurrent dislocation. Of these: 66 (75.0%) due to dislocation with re-revision; 10 (11.4%) due to dislocation with no re-revision surgery; 5 (5.7%) due to aseptic loosening of components; 3 (3.4%) due to osteolysis; 3 (3.4%) due to pseudotumour; and 1 (1.1%) due to periprosthetic fracture. The following factors increase risk of failure: the use of augmented-liners (lipped, oblique and high-offset liners; HR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.05-2.69), periprosthetic femur fracture (HR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.39-8.21) and pelvic discontinuity (HR = 3.69, 95% CI, 1.66-8.21). Femur head sizes 36-40 mm are protective (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). In abductor dysfunction the use of focal constrained liners decreases the risk of failure (HR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.018-0.973).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger head sizes and focal constrained liners (abductors dysfunction) should be used and fully constrained liners and augmented-liners should be avoided in a revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations.

Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis

BACKGROUND

Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: with reports of locking mechanism failures and loosening. We wanted to determine the outcome of constrained components in controlling dislocation, and if these components had a higher rate of second revision when compared with standard nonconstrained components.

METHODS

Revision THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with a recorded primary procedure and initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis were used to compare constrained and standard nonconstrained components. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated, and hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

There were 9509 THA first-revision procedures and 700 constrained components. Constrained components had a significantly higher revision rate after 3 months when large-head metal-on-metal components were included (hazard ratio = 1.37; P = .005). When large-head metal-on-metal components were excluded, there was no difference in the rate of second revision between the 2 groups. When the analysis was limited to first revision for dislocation, constrained components had a higher second revision rate for further dislocation after 9 months.

CONCLUSION

Constrained acetabular components had similar second-revision rates when compared with standard nonconstrained components, both for all first-revision reasons and when used to treat dislocation. Although possibly used for the more difficult unstable hips, constrained components had a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.

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.

High Failure Rate of Modular Exchange With a Specific Design of a Constrained Liner in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Addressing recurrent instability in patients with poor bone stock and inadequate abductor tensioning remains a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty. One treatment method is implantation of a constrained liner. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcomes, redislocation rate, and revisions of a focally constrained liner in a high-risk patient cohort.

METHODS

Fifty-eight hips between 2008 and 2011 underwent implantation of a focally constrained liner. Nineteen were placed concurrent with acetabular component revision and 39 were placed into a well-fixed acetabular shell. Mean age was 69 years and mean number of previous ipsilateral hip surgeries was 4.2. At mean follow-up of 3.5 years, we analyzed clinical outcomes, redislocation, and revisions.

RESULTS

Mean Harris Hip Scores was 74. Fourteen hips (24%) were revised and 3 hips (5%) required reoperation at final follow-up. Eleven hips (19%) redislocated at a mean time to dislocation of 12.2 months; 31% (11 of 36 patients) that underwent modular exchange specifically for instability redislocated. Risk factors for redislocation included number of previous surgeries (P = .013), implantation of a 28 mm femoral head (hazards ratio 12.8), revision indication of instability (P = .04), and modular exchange with constrained liner implantation without acetabular shell revision (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a focally constrained liner in revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent instability has a high failure rate, especially with a modular exchange. Although concurrent acetabular revision had a lower redislocation rate, the decision to revise a well-fixed cup should be weighed with potential complications associated with cup revision.

Longevity® constrained cup: an operative technical tip for prevention of metallic ring disassembly

Constrained liners are a salvage procedure for treating or preventing recurrent dislocations. The Longevity® constrained liner (Zimmer) has a special design with cut-outs on its circumference for avoiding impingement in certain areas and a metallic constraining ring that has to be impacted. The ring impaction may be technical demanding. We recommend preassembly with the head component prior to seating into the acetabular cup, thus avoiding the soft tissue or cement interference and malposition due to bad angle of incidence of impaction force.