Is dual mobility associated with an increased risk of revision for infection? Matched cohort of 231 cases of dual-mobility cups and 231 fixed cups

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size?

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings.

CONCLUSION

Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Cementless hydroxyapatite-coated stem with dual mobility and posterior approach in over-80 year-old patients with osteoarthritis: Rates of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture at a mean 8 years' follow-up

BACKGROUND

Straight cementless stems are common in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the elderly, but controversial due to higher risk of loosening and periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Apart from registries, results for the Corail implant and dual mobility (DM) in over-80 years-old are not known, notably in case of systematic association to a DM cup. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of Corail implants in patients aged≥80years at implantation for osteoarthritis of the hip, assessing 1) PPF rate and survival for cementless straight stems associated to DM cups, 2) complications, and dislocation in particular, and 3) clinical scores.

HYPOTHESIS

PPF and dislocation rates are low in THA with cementless straight stem associated to DM cup in patients aged≥80years.

PATIENTS METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in our department for the period July 2007 to December 2012. Inclusion criteria were age≥80years, with primary THA for osteoarthritis. Exclusion criteria were revision procedure and femoral neck fracture. One hundred and twenty-eight consecutive THAs were included, in 120 patients, with a minimum 5years' follow-up. Clinical results were assessed on Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Data were collected for PPF or dislocation and other complications.

RESULTS

At a mean 8±1 years' follow-up (range, 5-10 years), 66 patients (55%, for 68 hips) were alive, 48 (40%, for 54 hips) had died, and 6 (5%, for 6 hips) were lost to follow-up. Median age at surgery was 83years (range, 80-93years). Mean OHS at last follow-up was 41±6 (range, 21-48) and HHS 83±14 (range, 23-100) with mean gain of 32 points (95% CI, [28-36]; p<0.001)). There were 2 cases (1.6%) of PPF, at 2 and 65months, and no dislocations or cases of aseptic loosening. There were 2 cases (1.6%) of intraoperative calcar fracture, treated by wire cerclage with immediate complete weight-bearing, without further complications. With death as a competing risk, cumulative 10-year incidence of femoral stem revision was 1.6% [95% CI: 0.4-6.5], and cumulative incidence of all-cause revision was 4.1% [95% CI: 1.7-9.7].

DISCUSSION

In an over-80 year-old population, primary THA with straight cementless stem and 2nd generation dual mobility cup was an effective option with low risk of PPF or dislocation after a minimum 5-year of follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

Auxetic Metamaterials for Biomedical Devices: Current Situation, Main Challenges, and Research Trends

Auxetic metamaterials are characterized by a negative Poisson ratio (NPR) and display an unexpected property of lateral expansion when stretched and densification when compressed. Auxetic properties can be achieved by designing special microstructures, hence their classification as metamaterials, and can be manufactured with varied raw materials and methods. Since work in this field began, auxetics have been considered for different biomedical applications, as some biological tissues have auxetic-like behaviour due to their lightweight structure and morphing properties, which makes auxetics ideal for interacting with the human body. This research study is developed with the aim of presenting an updated overview of auxetic metamaterials for biomedical devices. It stands out for providing a comprehensive view of medical applications for auxetics, including a focus on prosthetics, orthotics, ergonomic appliances, performance enhancement devices, in vitro medical devices for interacting with cells, and advanced medicinal clinical products, especially tissue engineering scaffolds with living cells. Innovative design and simulation approaches for the engineering of auxetic-based products are covered, and the relevant manufacturing technologies for prototyping and producing auxetics are analysed, taking into consideration those capable of processing biomaterials and enabling multi-scale and multi-material auxetics. An engineering design rational for auxetics-based medical devices is presented with integrative purposes. Finally, key research, development and expected technological breakthroughs are discussed.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.

RESULTS

There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options

BACKGROUND

Hip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners.

METHODS

All aseptic 1^st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk.

RESULTS

There were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1^st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2^nd revision. The most common reasons for 2^nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2^nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2^nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) for Femoral Neck Fractures: Comparison between Standard and Dual Mobility Implants

The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the short-term clinical and radiological results between standard and dual mobility THA for femoral neck fractures (FNF) in older patients. The hypothesis is that the dual mobility cup (DMC) has the same outcomes but a lower dislocation rate than the standard THA. The study population included 56 patients (mean age 77.7 years, range 71–85) that underwent THA for displaced FNF. Patients were divided in two comparable groups for baseline characteristics (age, sex and comorbidities): 28 patients underwent THA with a standard cup (SC) and 28 THA with DMCs. The clinical records and radiograms were reviewed to search relevant data in their postoperative history. Two postoperative dislocations occurred in the SC group and none in the DMC group. At an average follow up of 23 months (12–40), 48 patients were available for the final evaluation. The WOMAC score for all patients averaged 6.26 (0–46) and was slightly better in the DMC group (4.94 vs. 7.58; p-value = 0.41); scores were significantly better in presence of neurological comorbidities (p-value = 0.04), in the absence of diabetes (p-value = 0.04) and in the case of psychiatric disorders (p-value = 0.02). Radiographic evaluation at one year showed signs of osteointegration in 42/48 (87.5%) acetabular components (20 DMCs, 22 SC). According to our experience, DMCs proved to be a valid option for the treatment of displaced FNF in older patients, since it allowed them to achieve short-term outcomes comparable to conventional THA, while decreasing the incidence of postoperative dislocations.

Primary total hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes of dual-mobility cups in patients at high risk of dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility cups (DMC) are currently used in patients having risk factors of instability. Most of the studies report the use of DMC in patients having a single high-risk variable. The aim of the study was to analyse a continuous series of patients treated with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and DMC with different high risk for dislocation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study analysing the outcomes of primary THA with DMC in patients at high-risk of dislocation. The sample consisted of 215 patients having 1 of 3 aetiologies or risk factors: (1) young subjects (<55 years); (2) osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH); and (3) femoral neck fracture (FNF).

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up duration of 70 ± 24.7 months, the findings showed the following: 2 patients had dislocated their hip following motor vehicle accidents; 1 patient had a traumatic femoral peri-prosthetic fracture; and 1 patient had an acute infection. No intra-prosthetic dislocation or aseptic loosening were encountered. No radiolucent lines were observed on the acetabular side. The mean modified Hip Harris Score was 96.6 ± 7.4%. Out of 186 patients, 170 (90.1%) would label their operated hip as a "forgotten hip". 78 out of the 84 patients (92.8%) who used to practice oriental sitting and/or ablution for prayers were able to return to their usual daily activities of extreme hip position and 74 out of the 84 patients (88%) described their operated hip as "a forgotten hip". No correlation was found between any of the studied variables.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this series of patients at high risk of dislocation showed excellent clinical and radiological results with very few complications. The use of DMC seems to counteract the impact of some aetiologies/risk factors that could lead to higher instability. Most patients practising extreme hip positions resumed their usual practices.

Dual-mobility cups could yield lesser infections than conventional cups: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility cups (DMC) are gaining popularity mainly for their reduced rate of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Currently, indication for DMC use extends beyond patients with high risk of dislocation or revision THA cases. Many authors reported DMC outcomes in primary THA for all aetiologies. However, some reports claimed that the use of DMC is accompanied with higher rates of infection compared with conventional cups (CC) in both primary and revision THA.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the use of DMC generate higher rates of infection when compared with conventional cups?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to look for significant difference in the rate of post-operative infection between DMC cups and conventional cups.

METHODOLOGY

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched since inception. Only studies with comparative design reporting the outcome infection rate were included.

RESULTS

Seventeen retrospective comparative studies were located comprising 248,541 patients: 16,020 in the DMC group and 232,521 in the CC group. The mean follow-up period was 37.5 ± 42 and 50.2 ± 48.7 months for the DMC and CC groups, respectively. The meta-analytical results indicated the following: (a) significantly lesser infections following DMC compared with CC in revision THA (odds ratio (OR) = 0.75 (95% CI = 0.653 to 0.874, P = 0.0002, I² = 25%); (b) for primary THA and for large-sampled registries, significance was found using only the fixed-effects model estimate; and (c) no significant difference was found for the subgroup of cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

Our results clearly refute the claim that DMC would yield higher rates of infection. On the contrary, the findings demonstrated that the use of DMC reduces the risk of post-operative infection in revision THA and a similar lower infection trend for primary THA when compared with the standard cups.

Absence of instabilities and intra-prosthetic dislocations at 7 to 11 years following THA using a fourth-generation cementless dual mobility acetabular cup

PURPOSE

Dual-mobility (DM) cups are increasingly used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) but there lacks literature on their long-term results. We aimed to investigate outcomes of a fourth-generation cementless DM acetabular cup at 7-11 years.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 240 consecutive hips that received cementless THA using the same dual mobility cup (Novae Sunfit TH) and femoral stem (Corail). Patients were recalled at ≥7 years to collect Oxford hip scores (OHS), Harris hip scores (HHS), and inspect for radiolucent lines and granulomas. Multi-variable analyses were performed to determine whether HHS or OHS were associated with pre- or intra-operative variables.

RESULTS

At 8.4 ± 0.8 years (range, 7-11), 6 hips were revised (2.5%), 54 deceased (22.5%), and 14 could not be reached (5.8%). Four revisions (2 cup+stem, 2 liners only) were due to sepsis (1.7%), one (cup and stem) for trauma (0.4%), and one (stem) due to aseptic loosening (0.4%). For the remaining 166 hips, HHS was 83.6 ± 13.2 and OHS was 20.3 ± 6.7. Multi-variable analysis confirmed that HHS (β = - 0.38; p = 0.039) and OHS (β = 0.36; p < 0.001) worsened with age, and that OHS was worse for Charnley C patients (β = 3.17; p = 0.009). Neither granulomas nor radiolucenies were observed around any cups, but radiolucenies were seen around 25 stems (20.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This fourth-generation DM cup demonstrated satisfactory outcomes at 7-11 years, with no instabilities or cup revisions due to aseptic loosening. Better OHS was observed for younger patients and those presenting higher Charnley grade.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case study.

Can dual mobility cups prevent dislocation without increasing revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the leading causes for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address this problem, the dual mobility (DM) cup was developed in the 1970s by the French. Despite the increased and, in some countries, broad use of DM cups, high quality evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional unipolar (UP) cups is lacking. There are a few well-conducted literature reviews, but the level of evidence of the included studies was moderate to low and the rates of revision were not specifically investigated. Therefore, we did a systematic review to investigate whether there is a difference in the rate of dislocations and revisions after primary THA with a DM cup or a UP cup.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases in July 2019. The articles were selected based upon their quality, relevance and measurement of the predictive factor. We used the MINORS criteria to determine the methodological quality of all studies.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 702 citations. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles met our eligibility criteria and were graded. Included studies were of medium to low methodological quality with a mean score of 14/24 (11-16) points following the MINORS criteria. In the case-control studies, a total of 549 DM cups and 649 UP cups were included. In the registry studies, a total of 5.935 DM cups and 217.362 UP cups were included. In the case-control studies, one (0.2%) dislocation was reported for the DM cups and 46 (7.1%) for the UP cup (p=0.009, IQR=0.00-7.00). Nine (1.6%) revisions, of which zero due to dislocation, were reported for the DM cup and 39 (6.0%), of which 30 due to dislocation, for the UP cup (p=0.046, CI=-16.93-5.73). In the registry studies 161 (2.7%) revisions were reported for the DM cup, of which 14 (8.7%) due to dislocation. For the UP cup, 3.332 (1.5%) revisions were reported (p=0.275, IQR=41.00-866.25), of which 1.093 (32.8%) due to dislocation (p=0.050, IQR=3.50-293.25).

CONCLUSION

This review suggests lower rates of dislocation and lower rates of revision for dislocation in favor of the DM cups. Concluding, DM cups might be an effective solution to reduce dislocation in primary THA. To evaluate the efficacy of DM cups compared to UP cups, an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial is needed focusing on patient important endpoints.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, systematic review of level III studies.

Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Contemporary Monoblock Dual-Mobility Cup in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of contemporary monoblock dual-mobility (DM) cups to prevent dislocations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well reported, but there is little published data on their mid- to long-term outcomes. The authors aimed at reporting the 10-year survival of a contemporary DM cup as well as its clinical and radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

From a retrospective consecutive multicentric series of 516 patients (541 hips) that received uncemented THA between June 2007 and June 2010, 6 patients (6 hips) had cup and stem revisions, 5 patients (5 hips) had isolated stem revision, and 2 patients (2 hips) had isolated insert revision. A total of 103 patients (111 hips) died with their original implants, and 41 patients (42 hips) were lost to follow-up. This left 358 patients (375 hips) for clinical assessment at a median follow-up of 8.7 years (range, 6.8-10.5 years), including 279 patients (290 hips) with postoperative radiographs. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine whether clinical outcomes are associated with patient or surgical factors.

RESULTS

The 10-year survival considering revision for aseptic loosening as end point was 100% for the cup and 99.2% for the stem. No dislocations were observed, and radiographic assessment revealed 1 acetabular granuloma (0.3%), but no radiolucencies nor fractures. The Harris hip score improved from 49.6 ± 15.5 to 85.2 ± 14.5, and the postoperative Oxford hip score was 19.2 ± 7.6. Multivariable analyses revealed that improvement in Harris hip score increased with cup diameter (beta, 1.28; P = .039).

CONCLUSION

Our data confirmed satisfactory midterm outcomes of uncemented THA using a contemporary DM cup, with no dislocations nor cup revisions due to aseptic loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective cohort study.