Cementless dual-mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision

Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of modern dual-mobility intraprosthetic dissociations

Aims

Dual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD.

Methods

A total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management.

Results

The incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation.

Conclusion

The overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure.

Dislocated and Dissociated Dual-Mobility Components Are Easily Missed and More Than Half Fail Closed Reduction: Six Tips to Aid Management

Dual-mobility (DM) implants reduce the risk of dislocation in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM implants are at risk for large-head dislocation and intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), where the inner femoral head dissociates from the outer polyethylene head. This study aimed to report the incidence of DM dislocation and IPD, evaluate the rate of recognition of IPD before and after reduction, investigate the outcomes of these complications, and provide treatment recommendations for their management.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2021, 695 primary and 758 revision THAs were performed with DM constructs at a single institution. There were 44 large-head dislocations (3.0%) and 10 IPDs (0.7%). Four additional IPDs occurred during attempted closed reduction, increasing the IPD incidence to 0.96%. We reviewed prior instability history, dislocation management, success of reduction, recognition of IPD, and subsequent rates of revision and complications. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years.

Results

Nine of 10 IPDs were missed at presentation and thus not treated as such. Sixty-three percent of attempted closed reductions in the emergency department failed and led to 4 IPDs and 1 periprosthetic fracture. Reduction success was associated with the following factors: use of general anesthesia with paralysis (p = 0.02), having the reduction performed by an orthopaedist (p = 0.03), and undergoing only 1 reduction attempt (p = 0.015). Two-thirds of dislocations required revision. The rate of redislocation was 33%, and 5 hips required subsequent revision at a mean of 1.8 years after the initial dislocation.

Conclusions

We present an evaluation of DM-implant dislocation and dissociation along with management recommendations based on these data. Given the low success and high complication rates of attempted closed reduction and the need for eventual revision, we recommend that all patients with dislocated DM implants be brought to the operating room for closed reduction as well as potential revision if the reduction fails.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Modular dual mobility articulation in primary and revision hip arthroplasty: lights and shadows

PURPOSE

The use of dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity in light of the fact it enables to reduce dislocation through increased jumping distance (JD) and impingement-free arc of movement. Modular Dual Mobility Cup (modular DMC) systems have been recently introduced to enable the use of dual mobility cups with standard metal-backed shells. The objective of this study was twofold: calculate the JD for each modular DMC system and conduct a systematic literature review to report clinical outcomes and reasons for failure of this construct.

METHODS

The JD was calculated using the Sariali formula: JD = 2Rsin [(π/2 - Ψ - arcsin (offset/R))/2]. A qualitative systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search for English and French articles between January 2000 and July 2020 was run on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus with the primary objective of finding articles about modular DMC systems.

RESULTS

We identified eight 8 different manufacturers of modular DMC systems and 327 publications on the subject. After screening for duplicates and eligibility, we identified 229 publications: 206 articles were excluded because they contained no reports on modular DMC systems, whereas other three were not included because they focused on biomechanical aspects. Among the 11 included articles, 2 were prospective case series, 9 were retrospective case series. True dislocation occurred in 25 cases (0.9%), and six of them were solved by closed reduction without necessity of revision, while all 5 intraprosthetic dislocations were operated.

CONCLUSIONS

Modular DMCs are a valid method to deal with complex THA instability, with good clinical and patient-reported outcomes, low complication rates, and low revision rates at early follow-up. We would advise cautious optimism on the role of modular DMC implants, as it seems safer to use ceramic instead of metallic heads whenever possible to avoid the increase cobalt and chromium trace ion serum levels.

Cementless augmented versus cemented Dual Mobility cups: medium-term outcome of case series with a control group

BACKGROUND

Post-operative dislocation and reconstruction of acetabular defects are two challenging topics in revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (rTHA). Cemented Dual Mobility (DM) cups on top of Kerboull Cross and bone graft have been successfully employed to overcome these challenges. The cementless augmented DM cups were recently introduced. In this study medium term results of the augmented cementless DM Coptos cups are reported and compared to the established technique of cemented DM cups and Kerboull plate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of data collected on patients who received rTHA using DM cups in the period between June 2015 and September 2020. Two groups of patients were identified. The first group received cementless augmented DM-cups (NOVAE® Coptos TH-SERF) (Coptos TH cup group). The second comparable group who had Kerboull ring (KE ring group) and cemented DM cups (NOVAE® STICK). Demographic data, surgical technique, functional and radiological outcome as well as complications during the follow-up visits are reported.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with a mean age at the time of revision 48.8 ± 13.6 years. 29 patients received Coptos TH DM-cup, while 13 patients had Bone Graft (BG), KE ring and cemented DM cups for acetabular reconstruction. Acetabular defects were Paprosky types IIB and IIC in 31 patients and IIIA and B in 11 patients. The follow-up was 52.8 ± 21 months (mean ± STD); and the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) at last visit was 91 ± 5. Good stability of all cups was reported. Full integration of the impaction graft was observed in 94% of the Coptos and 92% of the KE groups. One of the Coptos cups was readjusted and one case of single dislocation was recorded in the KE group. None of the DM cups in both groups was revised or awaiting revision.

CONCLUSION

Coptos TH cups achieve similar results to the cemented DM on KE ring at the medium term but long term outcome remains to be seen.

Survival and complications of total hip arthroplasty using third-generation dual-mobility cups with non-cross-linked polyethylene liners in patients younger than 55years

BACKGROUND

In younger patients, total hip prostheses are subjected to wide motion ranges and wear-inducing forces. Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in decreasing the risk of dislocation. However, wear and osteolysis have been reported with first-generation DMCs. These complications have not been assessed in younger patients managed with third-generation DMCs associated with a lower risk of intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD). We therefore designed a retrospective study of patients younger than 55years at THA with third-generation DMCs. Our objectives were to evaluate (1) the complication rate, and (2) the survival rate.

HYPOTHESIS

The rate of complications of THA with third-generation DMCs in patients younger than 55years of age is comparable to that in the general population of THA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 79 consecutive patients (91 hips) who had total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2007 and 2012. We included all patients younger than 55years who underwent primary THA with a third-generation DMC and a liner made of non-cross-linked polyethylene. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 9.8years (range: 2-13years). At last follow-up, no patient had experienced prosthetic dislocation or IPD. Aseptic and septic cup loosening each occurred in 1 patient. In all, 7 (7.7%) patients required revision surgery with exchange of at least one component (cup loosening, n=2; neck fracture with a short stem fixed to the neck, n=1; peri-prosthetic femoral fracture, n=1; infection, n=1; and femoral-stem loosening, n=2). Peri-acetabular osteolysis developed in 2 (2.2%) hips. Cup survival to aseptic loosening was 98.9% (95% confidence interval, 97%-100%) and survival to revision for any reason except infection was 95.6% (95% confidence interval, 82%-100%).

DISCUSSION

In patients younger than 55years, third-generation DMCs were associated with absence of prosthetic dislocation, absence of IPD, and a low revision rate for cup loosening, in the medium term. These implants therefore constitute a viable treatment option in younger patients requiring THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

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.

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.

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.

Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Efficient Strategy to Decrease Dislocation Risk

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a challenging surgery with a higher rate of complications than primary arthroplasty, particularly instability and aseptic loosening. The purpose of this study is to compare dual mobility cup (DMC) and standard mobility cup (SMC) in all rTHAs performed at our institution over a decade with a 1 year minimum follow-up.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-five rTHAs (acetabular only and bipolar revisions) between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. These were divided into those with a DMC (184 revisions) or SMC (111 revisions). Dislocation and complications requiring re-revision were reported.

RESULTS

The rTHA mean age was 69 years ± 13.9 (19-92) and the mean follow-up was 2.3 years. Dislocation risk was statistically lower (P = .01) with a DMC (3.8%; 7/184) than with an SMC (13.5%; 15/111). DMC required re-rTHA in 24/184 (13%) for any reason compared to SMC in 19/111 (17.1%) (P = .34). There was no significant difference in early aseptic loosening (P = .28) between the 2 groups. For young patients (≤55 years), results were similar with a lower dislocation rate in the DMC group (P = .24) and no increased risk of early aseptic loosening (P = .49).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that for all rTHA indications DMC compared to SMC has a significantly decreased risk of postoperative dislocation without risk of early aseptic loosening at medium term follow-up. The use of DMC in rTHA is an important consideration particularly with the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision THA globally.

Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.

METHODS

From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4-31.3), p = 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC_95%, 79.9-100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank, p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.

Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty with a dual-mobility cup. Matched case-control study (16 cases vs. 48 controls)

BACKGROUND

Reports of high dislocation rates after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) have encouraged the widespread use of dual-mobility cups. Dislocation has been less common but not fully abolished with dual-mobility cups, and its causes have remained unidentified. The objectives of this retrospective matched case-control study were: 1) to identify risk factors for dislocation, 2) and to assess dislocation outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

The causes of dislocation after revision THA with a dual-mobility cup can be identified.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Among 653 consecutive patients identified retrospectively as having undergone revision THA with a dual-mobility cup (Medial Cup, Aston, Saint-Étienne, France) between January 2007 and December 2017, 16 (2.45%) subsequently experienced dislocation, after a mean of 3.6 months (range, 0.9-19 months). For each of these 16 patients, we collected the main patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], ASA score, and reason for the initial arthroplasty procedure), local history (number of previous surgical procedures, reason for revision, femoral and acetabular bony defects classified according to Paprosky, and status of the abductor apparatus), and characteristics of the revision (approach, diameters of the cup and femoral head, cup inclination, femoral offset, lower limb length, and implant anteversion). Controls were patients without dislocation after revision dual-mobility THA. Each of the 16 patients was matched to 3 controls on age (±10 years), sex, year of revision, and whether revision was only acetabular or bipolar. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to compare the cases and controls, and dislocation outcomes in the cases were evaluated.

RESULTS

By univariate analyses, factors associated with dislocation were BMI>30 (cases, 37.5%; controls, 10.4%; p=0.02), larger number of previous surgical procedures on the same hip (cases, 2.8; controls, 1.8; p=0.004), larger number of arthroplasties (cases, 2.3; controls, 1.5; p=0.004), history of instability (cases, 31% with chronic dislocation and 13% with recurrent dislocation; controls, 6.25% and 2.1%, respectively; p=0.004), and compromised abductor apparatus (cases, 56.25%; controls, 14.6%; p=0.002). Independent risk factors for dislocation identified by multivariate analysis were instability (odds ratio [OR], 14.5; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.5-149.9) and, most importantly, abductor apparatus compromise (OR, 43.1; 95%CI, 3.18-586.3). Of the 16 cases, 1 was lost to follow-up, 1 had contra-indications to anaesthesia, 1 died after several dislocation episodes, and 1 died 3 months after surgical reduction. In 5 cases, there was a single dislocation episode. Further surgery was performed in 8 cases (surgical reduction, n=1; constrained cup, n=3; trochanteric internal fixation, n=1; exchange of the dual-mobility cup, n=2, including 1 with subsequent dislocation episodes; and femoral component exchange followed by a retentive cup due to further dislocation episodes, n=1).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for dislocation consisted of a history of instability and, most importantly, abductor apparatus compromise. A constrained cup should be considererd in patients with impaired abductor apparatus. No further dislocations occurred after reduction of the first episode in 31.25% of cases. Recurrent dislocation should prompt measures to correct impaired abductor apparatus whenever possible, as well as correction of any component malposition. Whether a retentive cup should be implanted routinely remains unclear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, matched case-control study.

Use of a Dual mobility cup to prevent hip early arthroplasty dislocation in patients at high falls risk

INTRODUCTION

Hip fracture is a common serious injury that occurs mainly in elderly. Dual-mobility hip arthroplasty or bipolar emiarthroplasty for its treatment remains a controversial decision. Co-morbidities and risk of fall represent additional aspects to be considered. The aim of our study was to determine the rate of mechanical complications for these two types of implants related to fall risk status of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study is a retrospective clinical trial of patients operated with a biarticular hemiarthroplasty or a dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty. Primary outcome was dislocation rate and need for any revision procedure. Patients were treated in a single center from January 2013 to March 2017. In all cases Morse Fall Scale (MSF) was calculated at patient admission to evaluate the risk of postoperative fall. Inclusion criteria to the study were: subcapital or femoral neck fracture of non-pathologic nature, patients with neuromuscular disorders or cognitive dysfunction, age > 75 years with MFS ≥ 45. The patients were reviewed postoperatively at 8 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. Patients had clinical (Harris hip score) and radiological assessment.

RESULTS

The mean duration of the follow-up was 283 months. There were five dislocations in Group A (5,6%) and no dislocations in Group B (0%). All dislocations occurred within the first 6 months after surgery. The mean Harris Hip score was 81,7 in Group A patients and 79, 8 in Group B patients.

DISCUSSION

Treatment of hip fractures on non-cooperative patients still represents a dilemma. Falls and runaway motions represent high risk factors of dislocation. Use of dual-mobility cup has been found to be associated with a not statistically proved decrease of dislocation compared to traditional cups.

CONCLUSION

Dual-mobility cups might be considered a valuable option to prevent postoperative dislocation but further study is needed before extending the indications for dual-mobility following a fracture of the femoral neck, to assess the potential cost and complications of a longer procedure. So far, despite a lower dislocation risk, the authors actually cannot recommend widely use of a dual-motility cup instead of emiarthroplasty in high falls risk patients.

Cementation of a monoblock dual mobility bearing in a newly implanted porous revision acetabular component in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

Background

The most common indications for revision total hip arthroplasty are instability/dislocation and mechanical loosening. Efforts to address this have included the use of dual mobility (DM) articulations. The aim of this study is to report on the use of cemented DM cups in complex acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty cases with a high risk of recurrent instability.

Methods

A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted. Patients who received a novel acetabular construct consisting of a monoblock DM cup cemented into a fully porous metal shell were included. Outcome data included 90-day complications and readmissions, revision for any reason, and Harris Hip Scores.

Results

Thirty-eight hips in 38 patients were included for this study. At a median follow-up of 215.5 days (range 6-783), the Harris Hip Score improved from a mean of 50 ± 12.2 to 78 ± 11.2 (P < .001). One (2.6%) patient experienced a dislocation on postoperative day 1, and was closed reduced with no further complications. There was 1 (2.6%) reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection treated with a 2-stage exchange.

Conclusions

In this complex series of patients, cementation of a monoblock DM cup into a newly implanted fully porous revision shell reliably provided solid fixation with a low risk of dislocation at short-term follow-up. Although longer term follow-up is needed, utilization of this novel construct should be considered in patients at high risk for instability.

Modern Dual-Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the outcomes of dual-mobility (DM) cups in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Specifically, we evaluated the following: (1) all-cause and aseptic survivorship rates; (2) dislocation rates; (3) complications; and (4) clinical outcomes reported using validated health status measures.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search included studies that reported the following: (1) re-revision rates, (2) complications, and (3) clinical outcomes following DM use in revision THA. The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) studies that did not stratify their analysis between primary and revision THA, (2) studies that utilized off-label techniques, (3) review articles, (4) case studies, (5) basic science articles, (6) non-English language reports, and (6) reports on patients who underwent surgery before 2010, in order to reflect modern DM implants use and technology. A total of 9 studies were included in our final analysis.

RESULTS

Aseptic and all-cause survivorship rates were 97.7% and 94.5%. Prevalence of dislocation was 2.2%, and 0.3% for intraprosthetic dislocation. Meta-analysis comparing DM to fixed-bearing prostheses demonstrated a significantly lower odds of dislocation in the DM cohort (odds ratio 0.24, P = .002). Complications occurred in 7.4% of revision THAs with DM cups, while infection rates totaled to 3.3% of cases. Studies comparing outcomes using Harris Hip Scores did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in improved postoperative scores (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

DM cups have demonstrated excellent survivorship, low dislocation, and overall complication rates. Therefore, it can be considered a safe and effective option, particularly in the high-risk patients who undergo revision THA.

Dual mobility acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty: advantages and drawbacks

INTRODUCTION

The dual mobility cup (DMC) concept was proposed by Professor Gilles Bousquet in 1974. Its' aims were to prevent postoperative dislocation, restore the physiological range of motion of the hip, and reduce the stresses at the interface. Since it was created, this design has been modified multiple times to reduce the complication rate, improve implant survival, and expand the indications.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of this review is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this implant based on its 40-year history and also to propose a range of indications based on published results. This will provide surgeons with a complete overview of DMC.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Published studies on DMC confirm the low dislocation rate. Improvements made to DMC overtime have greatly reduced the complications related to wear, such as aseptic loosening and intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD). According to the literature, the indications have expanded and are no longer limited to revision surgery only. Long-term studies are needed before we can draw formal conclusions and consolidate these promising results.

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty

Aims

Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra-articular dislocation.

Results

For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extra-articular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all-cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2).

Conclusion

Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High-quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:11–19.

Comparison of dual mobility cup and other surgical construts used for three hundred and sixty two first time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations: five year results from Lithuanian arthroplasty register

PURPOSE

Recently, there has been increasing interest in the use of dual mobility systems in the treatment of hip instability. The aim of this study was to investigate the re-revision rate of dual mobility cup compared to different surgical concepts when used for first-time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations.

METHODS

The data were derived from the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register. For survival analysis, we used both re-revision for all reasons and for dislocations as an end-point. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the influence of various covariates (age, gender, and implant concept).

RESULTS

A total of 1388 revisions were recorded from 2011 to 2015, of which 362 were performed due to recurrent dislocation. Of the revisions, 247 were performed using dual mobility cups, while 115 were performed using a variety of other surgical constructs including constrained acetabular cups, conventional cups, femoral head exchanges, stem exchanges or anti-luxation rings. There were 27 re-revisions of which 15 were for additional dislocations. There were only 2% re-revisions due to dislocation with dual mobility vs 9% when using other surgical constructs. Cox regression adjusting for age and gender showed that in the short-term, dual mobility cup had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation as well as for all reasons compared to the other surgical constructs.

CONCLUSION

In revision of total hip arthroplasties for dislocation, significantly lower short-term re-revision rate was observed for patients revised with dual mobility cup.

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility implants are subject to a specific implant-related complication, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), in which the polyethylene liner dissociates from the femoral head. For older generation designs, IPD was attributable to late polyethylene wear and subsequent failure of the head capture mechanism. However, early IPDs have been reportedly affecting contemporary designs.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and August 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "intraprosthetic dislocation," "dual mobility," "dual-mobility," "tripolar," "double mobility," "double-mobility," "hip," "cup," "socket," and "dislocation."

RESULTS

In all, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen were case reports and 2 were retrospective case series. These included a total of 19 total hip arthroplasties, which were divided into 2 groups: studies dealing with early IPD after attempted closed reduction and those dealing with early IPD with no history of previous attempted closed reduction. Early IPD was reported in 15 patients after a mean follow-up of 3.2 months (2.9 SD) in the first group and in 4 patients after a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (9.9 SD) in the second group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current data, most cases have been preceded by an attempted closed reduction in the setting of outer, large articulation dislocation, perhaps indicating an iatrogenic etiology for early IPD. Recognition of this possible failure mode is essential to its prevention and treatment.

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.

Comparison of dual-mobility cup and unipolar cup for prevention of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose - Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with higher dislocation rates than primary THA. We compared the risk of dislocation within 6 months and all-cause re-revision during the whole study period using either the dual-mobility cup or the unipolar cup. Methods - We used a prospective hospital registry-based cohort including all total and cup-only revision THAs performed between 2003 and 2013. The cups used were either dual-mobility or unipolar; the choice was made according to the preference of the surgeon. 316 revision THAs were included. The mean age of the cohort was 69 (25-98) years and 160 THAs (51%) were performed in women. The dual-mobility group (group 1) included 150 THAs (48%) and the mean length of follow-up was 31 (0-128) months. The unipolar group (group 2) included 166 THAs (53%) and the mean length of follow-up was 52 (0-136) months. Results - The incidence of dislocation within 6 months was significantly lower with the dual-mobility cup than with the unipolar cup (2.7% vs. 7.8%). The unadjusted risk ratio (RR) was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.11-1.02) and the adjusted RR was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.09-0.87). The number of patients needed to treat with a dual-mobility cup in order to prevent 1 case of dislocation was 19. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for all-cause re-revision in the dual-mobility group compared to the unipolar group was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3-1.4). Interpretation - Use of a dual-mobility rather than a unipolar cup in revision THA reduced the risk of dislocation within 6 months.

Bousquet dual mobility socket for patient under fifty years old. More than twenty year follow-up of one hundred and thirty one hips

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze dual mobility cup survival rate on young patients under 50 years old at more than 20 years of follow up.

METHODS

One hundred thirty seven hips with a first generation of dual mobility Bousquet cup (Serf) were included. The mean age at the time of the surgery was 41 years and the mean follow-up was 21.9 years.

RESULTS

Twenty year follow-up cup survival rate was 77%. No dislocation occurred, 44 hips were revised (including 21 cup aseptic loosenings isolated, 15 Intra Prosthetic Dislocations), seven hips were lost to follow-up, 11 patients died, and 75 hips were still in situ.

CONCLUSION

First generation dual mobility cup survival on young patient was comparable with literature results. The main complications, cup aseptic loosening and intra prosthetic dislocation, were wear-related. With improvements of the defects of first generation dual mobility, we might expect an even better survival rate with contemporary DM cups.

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review was to report the rate of dislocation following the use of dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase (Scopus) was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and March 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "dual mobility", "dual-mobility", "tripolar", "double-mobility", "double mobility", "hip", "cup", "socket". The following data were extracted by two investigators independently: demographics, whether the operation was a primary or revision THA, length of follow-up, the design of the components, diameter of the femoral head, and type of fixation of the acetabular component.

RESULTS

In all, 59 articles met our inclusion criteria. These included a total of 17 908 THAs which were divided into two groups: studies dealing with DM components in primary THA and those dealing with these components in revision THA. The mean rate of dislocation was 0.9% in the primary THA group, and 3.0% in the revision THA group. The mean rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.7% in primary and 1.3% in revision THAs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current data, the use of DM acetabular components are effective in minimising the risk of instability after both primary and revision THA. This benefit must be balanced against continuing concerns about the additional modularity, and the new mode of failure of intraprosthetic dislocation. Longer term studies are needed to assess the function of these newer materials compared with previous generations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):18-24.

Early experience with dual mobility acetabular systems featuring highly cross-linked polyethylene liners for primary hip arthroplasty in patients under fifty five years of age: an international multi-centre preliminary study

PURPOSE

To evaluate early performance of contemporary dual mobility acetabular systems with second generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene for primary hip arthroplasty of patients under 55 years of age.

METHODS

A prospective observational five years study across five centers in Europe and the USA of 321 patients with a mean age of 48.1 years was performed. Patients were assessed for causes of revision, hip instability, intra-prosthetic dissociation, Harris hip score and radiological signs of osteolysis.

RESULTS

There were no dislocations and no intra-prosthetic dissociations. Kaplan Meier analysis demonstrated 97.51% survivorship for all cause revision and 99.68% survivorship for acetabular component revision at five years. Mean Harris hip score was 93.6. Two acetabular shells were revised for neck-rim implant impingement without dislocation and ten femoral stems were revised for causes unrelated to dual mobility implants.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary highly cross-linked polyethylene dual mobility systems demonstrate excellent early clinical, radiological, and survivorship results in a cohort of patients that demand high performance from their implants. It is envisaged that DM and second generation annealed HXLPE may reduce THA instability and wear, the two most common causes of THA revision in hip arthroplasty.

The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Instability following total hip arthroplasty remains a common and disabling complication. The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. An increasing number of studies have been undertaken to better understand DMC long term outcomes and complications. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify its different uses and outcomes according to the indications.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed using the keywords 'dual mobility' and 'tripolar cup' with no limit regarding the year of publication. One hundred seventy six publications were identified.

RESULTS

Current literature shows that "contemporary" dual mobility cup are a significant indication to manage instability following primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Survivorship at midterm is comparable to other articulations for primary THA, but is more difficult to evaluate in revision. Intra-prosthetic dislocation, wear, and loosening are now uncommon with new generations of DMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to previous generations of DMC, the current "contemporary" DMC presents a significant improvement. Current literature reveals a tendency to increase the indications but further studies with long term follow up remain important to consolidate these findings.

Total hip arthroplasty instability in Italy

Hip dislocation is a major and common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), which appears with an incidence between 0.3% and 10% in primary total hip arthroplasties and up to 28% in revision THA. The hip dislocations can be classified into three groups: early, intermediate and late. Approximately two-thirds of cases can be treated successfully with a non-operative approach. The rest require further surgical intervention. The prerequisite to developing an appropriate treatment strategy is a thorough evaluation to identify the causes of the dislocation. In addition, many factors that contribute to THA dislocation are related to the surgical technique, mainly including component orientation, femoral head diameter, restoration of femoral offset and leg length, cam impingement and condition of the soft tissues. The diagnosis of a dislocated hip is relatively easy because the clinical situation is very typical. Having identified a dislocated hip, the first step is to perform a closed reduction of the implant. After reduction you must perform a computed tomography scan to evaluate the surgical options for treatment of recurrent dislocation that include: revision arthroplasty, modular components exchange, dual-mobility cups, large femoral heads, constrained cups, elimination of impingement and soft tissue procedures. The objective is to avoid further dislocation, a devastating event which is increasing the number of operations on the hip. To obtain this goal is useful to follow an algorithm of treatment, but the best treatment remains prevention.

Understanding wear in dual mobility total hip replacement: first generation explant wear patterns

PURPOSE

Dual mobility was introduced by Pr. G. Bousquet to improve the dislocation risk of total hip arthroplasty (THR). The wear mechanisms of this implant remain to be understood. Could enhanced explant wear analysis explain liner wear behaviour?

METHODS

Sixty-six explanted liners were selected. Non-destructive 3D scanning and heat colour treatment allowed reporting wear patterns on both convex and concave sides of the liners.

RESULTS

For many liners, liner convexity wear was found to be homogeneous, and linked to a longer implantation time. A few liners had signs of blocking of the convexity, leading to excessive internal damage. Intra prosthetic dislocations were found to only have internal circular wear without liner penetration.

CONCLUSION

Heat colour treatment showed its effectiveness for highlighting wear patterns. Optimal convexity mobility seemed to be leading to a longer implantation time, with decreased contact stresses on concavity. The retentive rim should have a distinct wear analysis.

Dual mobility total hip replacement in a high risk population

Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate results of dual mobility total replacement in a high risk population who take hip into hyperflexed position while sitting and praying on the floor.

Method: The study included 65 (35 primary total replacement and 30 complex total hip replacement) cases of total hip replacement using avantage privilege dual mobility cup system from biomet. A cemented acetabular component and on femoral side a bimetric stem, either cemented or uncemented used depending on the canal type. Ten cases were examined fluoroscopically in follow up.

Result: There was dislocation in one patient undergoing complex hip replacement. Fluoroscopy study showed no impingement between the neck of prosthesis and acetabular shell at extremes of all movements.

Conclusion: The prevalence of dislocation is low in our high risk population and we consider it preferred concept for patients undergoing complex total hip replacement.

Five to thirteen year results of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation

PURPOSE

Dual mobility (DM) socket has been associated with a low rate of dislocation following both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, little is known about the long-term efficiency of DM in the treatment of THA instability. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcome of a cemented DM socket to treat recurrent dislocation after a minimum of five year follow-up.

METHODS

The series included 51 patients with a mean age of 71.3 ± 11.5 (range, 41-98) years presenting with recurrent dislocation (mean 3.3). A single DM socket design was used consisting of a stainless steel outer shell with grooves with a highly polished inner surface articulating with a mobile polyethylene component. The femoral head was captured in the polyethylene component using a snap-fit type mechanism, the latter acting as a large unconstrained head inside the metal cup.

RESULTS

At the minimum five year follow-up evaluation, 18 of the 51 patients deceased at a mean of 4.8 ± 2.3 years, three were lost to follow-up at a mean of 1.4 years, seven had been revised at a mean of 4.7 ± 3.1 years (range, 1.5-9.1), and the remaining 23 were still alive and did not have revision at a mean of 8.2 ± 2.4 years (range, 5-13 years). Of the seven revision, three were performed for further episodes of dislocation (at the large bearing for one patient and intra-prosthetic for two patients) after a mean 5.9 ± 2.9 years (range, 2.7-9.1), whereas two were performed for late sepsis and two for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Radiographic analysis did not reveal any further loosening on the acetabular side. The survival rate of the cup at ten years, using re-dislocation as the end-point, was 86.1 ± 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 69.7-100%). The survival rate of the cup at ten years, using revision for any reason as the end-point, was 75.2 ± 9.3% (95% confidence interval, 56.9-93.5%).

CONCLUSION

A cemented dual mobility cup was able to restore hip stability in 94% of patients presenting with recurrent dislocating hips up to 13-year follow-up with none of the complications associated with constrained devices, as mechanical failure occurred in only 3.9% of the patients of this series. The overall reduced survival using revision for any reason as the end-point at ten years was related to this specific patients population that had various co-morbidities.

Dual-mobility arthroplasty failure: a rationale review of causes and technical considerations for revision

PURPOSE

Dual-mobility arthroplasty is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in appropriately selected, active adults with degenerative, necrotic or post-traumatic hip disease or with revision hip arthroplasty. Numerous papers have been published with results of dual-mobility arthroplasty, but there have been no comprehensive literature reviews that summarise the most recent findings and help the orthopaedic surgeon facing different scenarios in which revision of one or both components of a dual-mobility arthroplasty is indicated.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed search for papers published on dual-mobility arthroplasty that provided data on revision and add our experience in order to describe different revision scenarios. We collected data on revision for any reason, for aseptic loosening, for infection, or for dislocation. For each complication, we summarise causes and diagnosis of this complication and describe the direction of possible therapeutic options.

RESULTS

The dual-mobility arthroplasty offers the benefit of increased stability without compromising clinical outcomes and implant longevity. However, as with conventional arthroplasties, complications are also reported, with the most frequent being cup loosening, dislocation, accelerated wear and infection. Dual-mobility implants also have some specific complications secondary to their specific design, with the presence of a third joint. For example, intraprosthetic dislocation due to retentive failure of the polyethylene (PE) liner on the femoral head is a complication observed exclusively with this type of implant and involves articulation failure between the femoral head and the PE liner. Mechanical conflict with the iliopsoas tendon has also been reported, probably due to femoral head size, cup design, and/or a dysplastic hip. This systematic review of the literature identified several options for treating each complication, and in particular, options regarding conserving or not of one the two articulating devices.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings can inform discussions relating to risks and benefits of different therapeutic options when performing revision of a dual-mobility arthroplasty.

Dual-mobility implants prevent hip dislocation following hip revision in obese patients

PURPOSE

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with increased rates of dislocation in obese patients. It is not known whether dual-mobility implants decrease dislocation in these patients with obesity.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed two groups of revision THAs to compare the dislocation rate between 32 obese patients (BMI >30 kg/m²) with standard cups, and 35 obese patients (BMI >30 kg/m²) with dual-mobility cups. All patients received the same implants except for diameter head (32-mm head with standard cups and 28-mm head with dual mobility) and had the same cemented stem that was not changed at revision. The patients were followed at routine intervals and were specifically queried about dislocation. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, causes of revision and follow-up since the primary arthroplasty.

RESULTS

With standard liners, more hips in obese patients dislocated than did hips in obese patients who received dual-mobility implants. The number of dislocations in standard hips was at one year follow-up 15.6 % (5 of 32) compared with 0 % in dual-mobility hips and was at five year follow-up 21.8 % (7 of 32) compared with 2.8 % (1 of 35). After a mean follow-up of seven years no cases of loosening were found. Five patients in the obese group with a standard liner underwent re-revision surgery, the additional re-operations being necessary to treat recurrent postoperative dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients should be counselled about the important risk of dislocation that occurs with standard liners after revision THA. Dual-mobility liners in these patients with hip revision is an efficient technique to prevent post-operative hip dislocation.

Intra-prosthetic dislocation of dual-mobility cups after total hip arthroplasty: potential causes from a clinical and biomechanical perspective

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent dislocation of total hip arthroplasty is a frequent indication for revision surgery. Hip joint stability depends on implant design, cup position and crucially on femoral head diameter. Due to an effective ultra-large diameter femoral head, dual-mobility cups are considered an attractive solution to prevent dislocation in unstable conditions. Although patients obviously benefit for many years in terms of mobility and pain, an increase of intra-prosthetic dislocation reports using dual-mobility cups has been recently observed. However, the failure mechanism of this implant-specific complication, which is characterized by the loss of the positive-locking between the femoral head and the mobile liner, is not yet completely understood.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed with the PubMed database and a search engine to overview this topic and to identify potential causes for this implant-specific failure from a clinical and biomechanical perspective.

RESULTS

Peri-operative findings indicate extensive fibrosis at the large articulation as well as cup loosening as potential causes. In addition, current research has shown that the failure mechanism is affected by the surface topography of the femoral neck and in particular by the design of the mobile liner.

DISCUSSION

In clinical practice it is necessary to differentiate a classic dislocation between the mobile liner and the metallic shell from an intra-prosthetic dislocation between the femoral head and the liner.

CONCLUSION

Due to the increasing popularity of dual-mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty, the understanding of which implant-specific features or tissue response may increase the risk of intra-prosthetic dislocation is of major importance for reduced revision rates by using optimized surgical techniques and implant designs.