Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements with dual-mobility bearings and acetabular component retention

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years).

Results

In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)).

Conclusion

In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications.

Long-term Follow-up on Revisions of a Recalled Large Head Metal-on-metal Hip Prosthesis: A Single Surgeon Series

Background

In 2010, a recall was issued for a specific monoblock large head metal-on-metal (MoM) hip prosthesis due to short-term revision rates of 12%-13% (articular surface replacement, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Warsaw, IN). High complication, infection, and rerevision rates for revised MoM implants have been reported. The purpose of the study is to report long-term outcomes and trend metal ion levels of this recalled MoM prosthesis from a single surgeon series.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent revision of large MoM hip replacements between 2010 and 2015. Pre- and post-revision Harris Hip Score (HHS), cup abduction angles, anteversion angles, and cup sizes were compared. Survivorship and HHS were the primary outcomes measured; serum cobalt and chromium levels were secondary outcomes. Multivariate linear regression was used to examine the correlation between prerevision serum metal ion levels and HHS.

Results

A total of 24 hips (21 patients) met inclusion criteria. Mean time to revision was 4.12 years ± 1.1. Mean follow-up was 10.0 years (7-11.9 years). Mean HHS increased significantly after revision from 48.5 to 89.5 (P < .001). Higher prerevision cobalt levels were correlated with lower prerevision HHS (cobalt R = 0.25; chromium R = 0.3160). There was no correlation with prerevision cobalt (P = .2671) or chromium (P = .3160) with postrevision HHS. Most recent metal ion testing revealed a significant decrease in both cobalt (P = .0084) and chromium (P = .0115). Survival rate is 100%.

Conclusions

Our study showed excellent survivorship and outcomes at 10 years. There were no failures for any reason including infection. This differs from previous studies and confirms excellent long-term results are possible with revision of this recalled MoM implant.

Analysis of contact pressure in a 3D model of dual-mobility hip joint prosthesis under a gait cycle

Hip joint prostheses are used to replace hip joint function in the human body. The latest dual-mobility hip joint prosthesis has an additional component of an outer liner that acts as a cover for the liner component. Research on the contact pressure generated on the latest model of a dual-mobility hip joint prosthesis under a gait cycle has never been done before. The model is made of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) on the inner liner and 316L stainless steel (SS 316L) on the outer liner and acetabular cup. Simulation modeling using the finite element method is considered static loading with an implicit solver for studying the geometric parameter design of dual-mobility hip joint prostheses. In this study, simulation modeling was carried out by applying varying inclination angles of 30°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 60°, and 70° to the acetabular cup component. Three-dimensional loads were placed on femoral head reference points with variations of femoral head diameter used at 22 mm, 28 mm, and 32 mm. The results in the inner surface of the inner liner, the outer surface of the outer liner, and the inner surface of the acetabular cup showed that the variations in inclination angle do not have a major effect on the maximum contact pressure value on the liner component, where the acetabular cup with an inclination angle of 45° can reduce contact pressure more than the other studied inclination angle variations. In addition, it was found that the 22 mm diameter of the femoral head increases the contact pressure. The use of a larger diameter femoral head with an acetabular cup configuration at a 45° inclination can minimize the risk of implant failure due to wear.

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.

Late intraprosthetic dislocation of a monoblock dual-mobility cup cemented into a well-fixed cementless acetabular shell. A case report

Intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD) is a specific implant-related complication of dual mobility (DM) implants, which is defined as a dissociation of polyethylene (PE) liner from the femoral head. We report a unique case of  late IPD of a monoblock DM cup cemented into a well-fixed cementless acetabular shell for recurrent dislocation of total hip arthroplasty (THA). A 77-year-old woman was admitted to our department for acute right hip pain, functional impairment and inability to bear weight without any trauma. Three years earlier, she underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation with a monoblock DM cup cemented into a well-fixed cementless acetabular shell according to the "double-socket" technique. Three months after that revision the patient experienced an anterior THA dislocation, which was managed by closed reduction under sedation in the emergency room. No additional episodes of prosthesis instability occurred. Upon admission, radiographic evaluation showed  right THA dislocation. X-rays performed  after closed reduction revealed eccentric positioning of the head inside the cup, and a direct contact between the metal head and the cup was revealed by subsequent CT scan, confirming the suspicion of IPD. The patient underwent revision surgery, during which the PE liner was found lodged within the cup in a subluxated position, disassembled from the inner head. Both the acetabular cup and modular femoral stem proved well-fixed and impossible to remove, therefore they were retained. The explanted DM components were replaced with new ones of the same size and, thanks to the femoral neck's modular nature, it was substituted with a longer one, which resulted in improved stability against intraoperative stress maneuvers. The postoperative course was uncomplicated. At 1-year follow-up, the patient had a good functional recovery.

Hip stability parameters with dual mobility, modular dual mobility and fixed bearing in total hip arthroplasty: an analytical evaluation

Background

Use of dual mobility (DM) in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity due to the ability to reduce dislocation through increased jumping distance and impingement-free arc of movement. Recently, modular dual mobility (modDM) systems were introduced to give the possibility to use DM with standard metal-backed shells, however few has been studied to date regarding how jumping distance and the center of rotation change with modDM. The objective of this study was to evaluate, through analytical simulation, how jumping distance, center of rotation and arc of movement change between DM and standard cups with modDM or fixed bearings (FB).

Methods

3D-models of DM and standard press-fit cups with modDM or FB liners were used to simulate DM, modDM and FB implant configurations, matched for same cup size, according to same cup position and different femoral head diameters. Jumping distance was calculated and center of rotation lateralization and oscillation angles were measured for each size of these three implant configurations.

Results

Jumping distance with modDM was reduced by -3.9 mm to -8.6 mm in comparison with DM, from 48 to 64 mm size, but resulted comparable to polyethylene 36 mm FB and increased by + 1.1 mm and + 1.4 mm than ceramic 36 and 40 mm FBs for sizes > 54 mm. ModDM lateralized the center of rotation up to + 2.5 mm and + 4.0 mm in comparison with DM and FBs, respectively. Oscillation angle with modDM resulted higher than + 16°, + 23°, + 17° and + 14° in comparison to DM, 28 mm, 32 mm and 36 mm FB cups, respectively, for 56 mm cup size.

Conclusions

According to its specific design, modDM might change hip stability parameters in comparison to DM, worsening jumping distance and center of rotation position, but increasing arc of movement. As not restoring stability parameters in the same fashion, modDM implants should be properly used when DM cups are not feasible.

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080