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

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three surgical options for treating displaced femoral neck fractures in active older patients in Japan: A full economic evaluation

For older patients with displaced femoral neck fractures, in which primary osteosynthesis is usually not indicated, there are three primary prosthetic options-bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA), single-bearing total hip arthroplasty (SB-THA), and dual-mobility THA (DM-THA). However, the optimal choice for managing displaced femoral neck fractures remains controversial. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BHA, SB-THA, and DM-THA in active older patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. A decision tree combined with a Markov model was employed to analyze the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of BHA, SB-THA, and DM-THA for the management in the Japanese healthcare system. By simulating the five-year trajectory of a 75-year-old woman treated for a displaced femoral neck fracture, the cost-effectiveness of the three surgical options was evaluated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to assess parameter uncertainty. Additionally, two scenario analyses were conducted for other settings. The treatment was considered to be cost-effective when the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the 5,000,000 yen/QALY threshold. Compared with BHA, SB-THA exhibited higher costs but greater health benefits, resulting in an ICER of 1,499,440 yen/QALY. DM-THA offered additional health benefits compared with SB-THA, with an ICER of 4,145,777 yen/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed some influential parameters. PSA indicated that the probability of DM-THA, SB-THA, and BHA being cost-effective was 40.1%, 38.5%, and 21.4%, respectively. SB-THA was more cost-effective than BHA in patients aged 65-85 years, while DM-THA was more cost-effective than SB-THA in patients aged 65-75 years. The results suggest that SB-THA is a cost-effective alternative to BHA for displaced femoral neck fractures in active older patients, whereas DM-THA is more cost-effective than SB-THA in relatively younger patients. It is, therefore, recommended that orthopedic surgeons select the most appropriate surgical option based on the individual patient's physiological age.

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

BACKGROUND

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 (rTHA).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases between January 2000 and 2023. Outcome measures included rerevision due to dislocation, rerevision for other causes, all-cause rerevision, total complication rate, and functional outcome measures. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies 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 subgroup 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 rTHA hips included (2,108 DM and 2,896 FB). The DM implants had significantly lower odds of rerevision due to dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, P < 0.001), aseptic loosening (OR 0.54, P = 0.004), and all-cause rerevision (OR 0.55, P < 0.001) compared to FB implants. No statistically significant difference was seen in the odds of rerevision due to periprosthetic joint infection (OR 0.99, P = 0.94) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 0.59, P = 0.13) between the 2 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 rerevision due to dislocation (OR 0.69, P = 0.11) between DM and larger femoral head FB implants.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Does-dual mobility still offer improved stability in smaller cup sizes? A computer modelling comparison of stability with 22-mm versus 28-mm inner heads in dual-mobility versus single-bearing constructs

PURPOSE

Dislocation remains 1 of the leading causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and there is clear evidence the dual-mobility (DM) is used more frequently to minimise this. But in smaller cups, whether the use of DM with smaller 22-mm heads imparts any increased stability compared to standard bearing is unknown; especially when those smaller cups now allow for large single-bearing (SB) heads.

METHODS

3 primary cup sizes (48 mm, 50 mm, 52 mm) were chosen a priori for modelling. Head sizes trialled for the standard bearing (SB) constructs group were 28-0 mm, 32-0 mm and 36-0 mm against neutral polyethylene liners. In the modular sub-hemispheric DM constructs the inner head sizes for the DM constructs were altered where appropriate (22-0 mm vs. 28-0 mm). Cup position, stem offset, and stem size were standardised.

RESULTS

Both DM constructs outperformed all SB constructs because of a statistically significant jump distance increase (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in range of motion (ROM) or jump distances between the 22-mm and 28-mm DM inner heads.The ROM angle before impingement between the DM (with 22-mm or 28-mm heads) and SB (with different head sizes where appropriate) showed no statistically significant difference. However, DM constructs presented significantly larger jump distances than SB constructs for both provocative dislocation tests across all 3 cup sizes.Of interest, for 50-mm and 52-mm cup sizes (for which this particular DM construct design can accommodate both 22-mm and 28-mm inner heads), there were no differences in ROM or jump distance between 22-mm versus 28-mm inner heads.

CONCLUSIONS

In this computer-modelling study, DM constructs are advantageous over SB constructs for improving jump distances in clinically provocative positions, but not range of motion angles. Inner head diameter of DM has no effect on stability.

The True Dislocation Incidence following Elective Total Hip Replacement in Sweden: How Does It Relate to the Revision Rate?

(1) Background: The true dislocation incidence following THA is difficult to ascertain in population-based cohorts. In this study, we explored the cumulative dislocation incidence (CDI), the relationship between the incidence of dislocation and revision surgery, patient- and surgery-related factors in patients dislocating once or multiple times, and differences between patients being revised for dislocation or not. (2) Methods: We designed an observational longitudinal cohort study linking registers. All patients with a full dataset who underwent an elective unilateral THA between 1999 and 2014 were included. The CDI and the time from the index THA to the first dislocation or to revision were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, giving cumulative dislocation and revision incidences at different time points. (3) Results: 136,810 patients undergoing elective unilateral THA were available for the analysis. The 30-day CDI was estimated at 0.9% (0.9-1.0). The revision rate for dislocation throughout the study period remained much lower. A total of 51.2% (CI 49.6-52.8) suffered a further dislocation within 1 year. Only 10.9% of the patients with a dislocation within the first year postoperatively underwent a revision for dislocation. (4) Discussion: The CDI after elective THA was expectedly considerably higher than the revision incidence. Further studies investigating differences between single and multiple dislocators and the criteria by which patients are offered revision surgery following dislocation are urgently needed.

Survivorship of the dual-mobility construct in elective primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data

INTRODUCTION

Dislocation is a common complication associated with total hip replacement (THR). Dual-mobility constructs (DMC-THR) may be used in high-risk patients and have design features that may reduce the risk of dislocation. We aimed to report overall pooled estimates of all-cause construct survival for elective primary DMC-THR. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted dislocation rate, revision for instability, infection and fracture.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and National Joint Registry reports were systematically searched (CRD42020189664). Studies reporting revision (all-cause) survival estimates and confidence intervals by brand and construct including DMC bearings were included. A meta-analysis was performed weighting series by the standard error.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies reporting 39 case series were identified; nine (10,494 DMC-THR) were included. Fourteen series (23,020 DMC-THR) from five national registries were included. Pooled case series data for all-cause construct survival was 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-100) at 5 years, 95.7% (95% CI 94.9-96.5) at 10 years, 96.1% (95% CI 91.8-100) at 15 years and 77% (95% CI 74.4-82.0) at 20 years. Pooled joint registry data showed an all-cause construct survivorship of 97.8% (95% CI 97.3-98.4) at 5 years and 96.3% (95% CI 95.6-96.9) at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivorship of DMC-THR in primary THR is acceptable according to the national revision benchmark published by National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR).

METHODS

Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head.

RESULTS

At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates.

CONCLUSION

The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Dual Mobility Total Hip Replacements in Young Patients- A Systematic Review

Background

There is little consensus on outcomes of dual Mobility total hip replacement (DM-THR) in younger patients. We performed a systematic review to examine this.

Methods

A systematic review of all observational studies and randomised controlled trials of patients under 70 with primary DM-THR in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Collected data included demographics, revision, dislocation and infection rates and functional scores.

Results

Twelve papers studying 738 DM-THR in 664 patients were included. The mean patient age was 46.9 years (13.5-69.0), with 319 (48.0%) being female and 419 (52.0%) being male. After an average follow-up of 90.0 months (1-371 months), the revision rate was 12.7% (84 hips), 0 dislocations were reported but 2.5% (15 hips) underwent intra-prosthetic dislocation. 32.1% hip revisions were due to aseptic loosening.

Conclusion

Limited literature surrounding the use of DM-THR suggests favourable stability but higher revision rates than conventional THR.

Interpreting decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations in orthopaedics

Economic evaluation provides a framework for assessing the costs and consequences of alternative programmes or interventions. One common vehicle for economic evaluations in the healthcare context is the decision-analytic model, which synthesizes information on parameter inputs (for example, probabilities or costs of clinical events or health states) from multiple sources and requires application of mathematical techniques, usually within a software program. A plethora of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions have been published in recent years. This annotation outlines a number of issues that can help readers, reviewers, and decision-makers interpret evidence from decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):17-20.

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.

Comparison of Premium Technology Utilization in Total Hip Arthroplasty Between Safety-net Hospitals and Non-safety-net Hospitals

INTRODUCTION

The objective of our study was to investigate the association of safety-net hospital (SNH) status with the use of premium technologies in total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American Joint Replacement Registry.

METHODS

Premium technology was defined as having one or more of the following three characteristics: ceramic femoral head, dual mobility (DM) bearing, or surgery conducted with robotic assistance (RA). Patients of all ages were included and subdivided into ceramic femoral head, DM, and RA cohorts. SNH status (based on disproportionate share data), patient demographics, geographical region, hospital size, and teaching affiliation were assessed. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to analyze any notable associations.

RESULTS

A total of 624,933 THAs between SNHs and non-SNHs were available for analysis. Based on the three different premium technology categories, there were 551,838 THAs for ceramic femoral head utilization analysis, 601,223 THAs for DM utilization analysis, and 199,250 THAs for RA utilization analysis. SNHs were associated with less use of DM and RA (odds ratio [OR] 0.53 P < 0.0001, 0.39 P < 0.0001, respectively). No difference was observed in ceramic femoral head utilization between SNHs and non-SNHs. Patient age was significantly associated with less utilization of all three premium THA technologies (ceramic: OR 0.43 P < 0.0001; DM: OR 0.93 P < 0.0001, RA: OR 0.89 P < 0.001). Teaching hospitals were significantly associated with increased utilization of premium THA technologies (ceramic: OR 1.23 P < 0.0001, DM: OR 1.62 P < 0.0001, RA: OR 5.33 P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Premium THA technologies are becoming increasingly used across the US healthcare system; however, that growth is not equal in hospitals with marginalized patient populations. The utilization of ceramic femoral heads is becoming increasingly common across healthcare systems suggesting that ceramic femoral heads may no longer be considered premium technology but rather standard THA care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Influence of dual-mobility acetabular implants on revision and survivorship of cup and Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs in aseptic acetabular loosening

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility (DM) acetabular implants have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent postoperative instability, with excellent mid-term survivorship. However, few comparative studies assessed the long-term outcomes of DM implants used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular revision. The present study aimed to compare long-term survivorship, dislocation rates and clinical outcome between DM acetabular implants and conventional single-bearing (SB) implants when cemented in a reinforcement ring.

HYPOTHESIS

Dual-mobility implants are associated with equivalent survivorship and lower dislocation rates than SB implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study included 60 revision THAs for aseptic loosening using a Kerboull-type reinforcement ring, and finally included 2 groups of 23 patients with either DM or SB cemented acetabular implants after matching for age, gender, BMI and preoperative Harris hip score. Mean follow-up was 10 years (range, 6-14 years). Acetabular implant survivorship, dislocation rate and radiographic failure incidence (>5mm migration, progressive radiolucency, graft non-integration, reinforcement ring breakage) were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes used the Harris hip score, the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score and the Parker score.

RESULTS

Survivorship free of aseptic acetabular re-revision was 89% at 10 years, with no significant difference between DM and SB (91% and 86%, respectively; p=0.54). Single-bearing implants showed a hazard ratio for dislocation of 6.7 (95% CI, 1.5-29.6; p=0.01) compared to DM implants. There were no significant differences in radiologic failure (10-year survivorship 72% and 64%, respectively; p=0.88) or functional scores.

DISCUSSION

The present study confirmed the impact of dual-mobility implants in reducing long-term dislocation risk when used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular aseptic revision, with no increased risk of re-revision compared to conventional single-bearing implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative retrospective study.

Effect of intraoperative treatment options on hip joint stability following total hip arthroplasty

Dislocation remains the leading indication for revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to use a computational model to compare the overall resistance to both anterior and posterior dislocation for the available THA constructs commonly considered by surgeons attempting to produce a stable joint. Patient-specific musculoskeletal models of THA patients performing activities consistent with anterior and posterior dislocation were developed to calculate joint contact forces and joint positions used for simulations of dislocation in a finite element model of the implanted hip that included an experimentally calibrated hip capsule representation. Dislocations were then performed with consideration of offset using +5 and +9 offset, iteratively with three lipped liner variations in jump distance (10°, 15°, and 20° lips), a size 40 head, and a dual-mobility construct. Dislocation resistance was quantified as the moment required to dislocate the hip and the integral of the moment-flexion angle (dislocation energy). Increasing head diameter increased resistive moment on average for anterior and posterior dislocation by 22% relative to a neutral configuration. A lipped liner resulted in increases in the resistive moment to posterior dislocation of 9%, 19%, and 47% for 10°, 15°, and 20° lips, a sensitivity of approximately 2.8 Nm/mm of additional jump distance. A dual-mobility acetabular design resulted in an average 38% increase in resistive moment and 92% increase in dislocation energy for anterior and posterior dislocation. A quantitative understanding of tradeoffs in the dislocation risk inherent to THA construct options is valuable in supporting surgical decision making.

Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures

AIMS

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA.

METHODS

Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer's perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions.

RESULTS

DM-THA was found to be cost-effective, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $46,556 (£27,074) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis revealed DM-THA was not cost-effective across all age groups in the first two years. DM-THA becomes cost-effective for those aged under 80 years at time periods from five to 15 years, but was not cost-effective for those aged 80 years and over at any timepoint. To be cost-effective at ten years in the base case, DM-THA must reduce the risk of dislocation compared to SB-THA by at least 62%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DM-THA was 58% likely to be cost-effective in the base case.

CONCLUSION

Treating patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture using DM-THA components may be cost-effective compared to SB-THA in patients aged under 80 years. However, future research will help determine if the modelled rates of adverse events hold true. Surgeons should continue to use clinical judgement and consider individual patients' physiological age and risk factors for dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1783-1790.

Dual Mobility Reduces Dislocations-Why I Use It in All Revisions

BACKGROUND

Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and presents a unique treatment dilemma for the orthopedic surgeon. Dual mobility (DM) bearing articulations have been used in France since the 1970s, but have only become more widely adopted in the United States over the last decade. The purpose of this symposium was to discuss the role for DM bearings in revision THA.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing literature on outcomes after DM bearing articulations in revision THA. We also report several case examples of the use of DM in difficult revision THA cases, including acetabular bone loss, failed constrained liner, and adverse local tissue reaction. Finally, we briefly discuss the limitations associated with the use of DM.

RESULTS

Several large retrospective series demonstrate that DM bearings reduce the incidence of dislocation after revision THA when compared with conventional single bearing THA. Specific complications related to DM bearings including polyethylene wear, loosening, intraprosthetic dislocation, and corrosion remain a concern, but appear to have drastically improved over time with modern implant designs.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary DM designs have been established as an effective bearing option to reduce instability in revision THA, although concerns do exist. High-quality prospective studies are necessary to further define the role this bearing option has in the coming years.

Dual Mobility and Conventional Bearings Have Comparably Low Dislocation Rates for Anterior-Based Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in select patients, especially those undergoing revision surgery. The use of DM bearings has not been studied as extensively for use in primary THA. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following primary THA with anterior-based approaches between patients receiving DM bearings vs standard bearing hip implants.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary THA through an anterior-based approach. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between the standard and DM bearing patients to control for possible risk factors for instability. Functional outcomes, dislocations, and aseptic revisions were identified for each patient. The effect of DM on postoperative outcomes was determined using univariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 250 DM bearings were compared to 753 standard bearings. We found no difference in dislocation rate between single bearings and DM bearings (0.53% vs 0.4%). There was 1 DM dislocation occurring in a liner with outer diameter of 38 mm. There were no DM dislocations with outer diameter >38 mm. Aseptic revision surgery was more common in DM. This difference was driven by higher incidence of femoral periprosthetic fracture. There were no differences in functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Dislocation rates are comparably low between DM bearings and standard bearings for THA done using an anterior approach to the hip. Further investigation is needed to determine if specific patient populations may benefit from DM implants for primary THA when an anterior approach to the hip is being used.

Advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been quoted as one of the most successful and cost-effective procedures in Orthopaedics. The last decade has seen an exponential rise in the number of THAs performed globally and a sharp increase in the percentage of young patients hoping to improve their quality of life and return to physically demanding activities. Hence, it is imperative to review the various applications of technology in total hip arthroplasty for improving outcomes. The development of state-of-the-art robotic technology has enabled more reproducible and accurate acetabular positioning, while long-term data are needed to assess its cost-effectiveness. This opinion piece aims to outline and present the advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty, from virtual reality and three-dimensional printing to patient-specific instrumentation and dual mobility bearings. This illustrates and reflects the debate that will be at the centre of hip surgery for the next decade.