Dislocation rates with combinations of anti-protrusio cages and dual mobility cups in revision cases: Are we safe?

Conventional single articulation constrained liners in revision hip arthroplasty: risk factors for failure and their combinations

BACKGROUND

Constrained liners (CLs) have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with varying results. Relatively few studies have identified specific risk factors for failure. This study aimed to assess implant survivorship and complication rates, identify risk factors for constraint-related complications, and assess the effect of multiple factors present in a single case.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 rTHAs for various aseptic indications and as second-stage procedures for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) utilising 2 models of conventional single-articulation CLs. We excluded 8 cases in which the liners were removed early due to PJI and assessed the risk factors for constraint-related complications in the remaining 93 cases. The mean follow-up duration for complication-free cases was 6.5 years (range 4.7-10.5 years).

RESULTS

The incidences of dislocation of a prosthetic head and loosening of the acetabular component were 19.8% and 5.0%, respectively. We also observed 8 cases where the locking ring of the liner was dislodged without dislocation (1 case required re-revision). The presence of factors related to impingement (cup retention, smaller internal diameter CLs, signs of probable impingement from the femoral side) was associated with higher rates of constraint-related complications. The presence of factors related to soft-tissue stabilisers did not increase the rate of complications. The simultaneous presence of multiple impingement-related risk factors resulted in worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

CLs may be less effective for treating or preventing instability related to impingement. CLs should be used with caution or avoided when multiple impingement-related risk factors are present.

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.

The modern Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for the treatment of acetabular defects: is it still an option? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A number of papers have been published about the clinical performance of modern rough-blasted titanium Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cages (BS-APCs) for the treatment of acetabular bone defects. However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date.

METHODS

The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications using keywords pertinent to Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage, revision THA, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

8 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study in which 374 cases (370 patients) had been treated with modern BS-APCs. Most acetabular bone defects were type 3 according to the Paprosky classification (type 2C: 18.1%, 3A: 51%, and 3B: 28.9%). The overall re-revision rate for the 374 acetabular reconstructions with modern BS-APCs was 11.5% (43 cases). The short-term survival rate of the modern BS-APC construct was 90.6% (339 out of 374 cases), while the mid-term survival rate was 85.6% (320 out of 374 cases), and the long-term survival rate 62% (54 out of 87 cases). The most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (5.6%), periprosthetic joint infection (3.8%), dislocation (2.7%), and acetabular periprosthetic fracture (1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate quality evidence to show that the use of modern rough blasted titanium BS-APCs in cases of acetabular bone loss has an unacceptably high failure rate (38%). Given that antiprotrusio cages do not provide any biological fixation, we would not recommend the routine use of modern BS-APCs in complex revision THA cases. By contrast, the satisfactory short- to mid-term outcome of modern BS-APCs in combination with their low cost compared to highly porous acetabular implants, make us feel that BS-APCs might still be used in selected elderly or low-demand patients without severe superomedial acetabular bone loss.

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.

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.

Use of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: Indications and outcomes

Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be a problematic complication and remains one of the leading causes of revision surgery in the early post-operative period. Dual mobility (DM) implants decrease dislocation risk after THA but they come with their own set of complications. Selective use of DM implants for THA in high risk groups can confer the advantages of this construct while mitigating the risks. In this paper, we review the current literature to examine the evidence for or against use of DM implants in various clinical scenarios and provide an algorithm for when to consider using DM design construct in THA.