The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty after bariatric surgery: A systematic review

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for the development of osteoarthritis and contributes to the increasing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Because a lower preoperative weight decreases the risk of complications after TJA, and because bariatric surgery (BS) can reduce weight and comorbidity burden, orthopedic surgeons often recommend BS prior to TJA in patients with obesity. However, the optimal timing of TJA after BS in terms of complications, revisions and dislocations is unknown.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched for any type of study reporting rates of complications, revisions and dislocations in patients who had TJA after BS. The included studies' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Out of the 16 studies eligible for review, eight registry-based retrospective studies of high to moderate quality compared different time periods between BS and TJA and overall their results suggest little differences in complication rates. The remaining eight retrospective studies evaluated only one time period and had moderate to poor quality. Overall, there were no clear differences in outcomes after TJA for the different time frames between BS and TJA.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic review suggest that there is limited and insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the optimal timing of TJA after BS in terms of the rates of complications, revisions and dislocations. Given this lack of evidence, timing of TJA after BS will have to be decided by weighing the individual patients' risk factors against the expected benefits of TJA.

Mid-term results of a cementless hip stem in femoral revision: how much diaphyseal press-fit do we need?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcome of a modular tapered revision hip stem after mid-term follow-up with a special focus on the length of the distal bicortical fixation of the cementless hip stem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Follow-up examination was carried out for all patients with implantation of the Prevision hip stem between 2014 and 2019 to collect demographic, functional, and radiographic data.

RESULTS

44 patients with stem in situ were examined, and 61 patients could be included in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Oxford's hip score was 37.3 at the mean follow-up of 4.0 years. Two hip stem revisions were performed due to periprosthetic infection, which resulted in a hip stem survival rate of 96.7% (CI: 87.4-99.1%) at the final follow-up of 7.5 years. No aseptic hip stem revision was required. The length of bicortical distal fixation was in the interquartile range of 6.8 to 9.0 cm, which was associated with good bone healing and a low rate of subsidence (4.5%). Implant-associated complications were observed in 10 cases (21.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The modular revision hip stem provides promising results at medium-term follow-up, with satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes comparable to other modular revision hip stems. The presented length of bicortical distal fixation shows the practice of the study center and was associated with good implant survival, bone healing and radiological results.

REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04833634 registered on April 6, 2021.

Use of dual mobility cup cemented into a tantalum acetabular shell for hip revision with large bone loss can decrease dislocation risk without increasing the risk of mechanical failure

BACKGROUND

Porous tantalum components and augments have demonstrated short to midterm fixation stability in acetabular total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision but do not offer a novel option to decrease the postoperative dislocation rate. Recently, dual mobility (DM) cups have gained interest to decrease the prevalence of recurrent hip instability after revision hip arthroplasty, but this issue was not confirmed combined with use of tantalum reconstruction devices. Therefore, we did a retrospective study aiming to: (1) evaluate at a 5-year minimum follow-up period the dislocation rate (and other intra- and postoperative complications), (2) assess radiographic results specifically looking at osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, (3) and also clinical results in a cohort of patients who underwent complex acetabular reconstruction with trabecular metal revision components associated with a cemented DM socket.

HYPOTHESIS

Using a DM socket cemented in porous tantalum components can reach the low risk of hip dislocation reported with DM components in revision setting without increasing the risk of a mechanical failure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study identified 174 THA revision including an acetabular revision. Were excluded 118 revisions with acetabular defects Type 1, 2a or 2B according to Paprosky's classification, as well as 18 hips revised without a dual mobility and 3 patients (3 hips) lost to follow-up. Were thus included in this study 35 hips (35 patients) implanted with uncemented total hip arthroplasty revision using both trabecular metal acetabular cup-cage reconstruction and a cemented DM cup. Seven hips were classified Paprosky types 2C, 15 type 3A and 13 types 3B. Patients were followed with clinical and radiological evaluation regarding dislocation rate, infection, reoperation or re-revision, osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, and functional results according to the Harris hip score and psoas impingement presence.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 8.1±1.8 years (5.1-12.6), one dislocation was recorded, and one acute deep infection. No patient required a cup re-revision for septic or aseptic loosening. The survivorship at 8years regarding revision for any cause as an endpoint was 96.5% (CI95%: 92-99). Osseointegration of TM implants was analyzed and found no acetabular migration at the last follow-up in the cohort. The mean hip center position was optimized from 48±7mm (37-58) to 34±5mm (29-39) vertically and from 26±5mm (-18-36) to 24±8mm (7-31) horizontally without reaching significance (p=0.1). On the last follow-up X-rays, the mean acetabular inclination was 47̊±9̊ (32̊-61̊). According to the criteria of Hirakawa, 97.1% (34/35) of the hip centers were restored. One cup (2.9%) was more than 5mm proximally from the hip center, and none more than 10mm. Clinical results assessed a Harris Hip Score improved from 36±17 (23-62) preoperatively to 82±15 (69-93) at last follow-up (p<0.0001). Two patients (2/35, 5.7%) complained of psoas impingement.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests effectiveness of DM cups in association with a tantalum-made acetabular shell for reconstruction of large bone defect in THRs for both solving postoperative instability and aseptic loosening without increasing the re-revision rate for any reason in a midterm follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; observational study.

A Meta-Analysis to Evaluate Implant Survival and Benefits of the Use of Dual Mobility Constructs in Total Hip Replacement Following Hip Fracture

Total hip replacement (THR) is commonly performed to treat hip fractures. Dual-mobility constructs (DMCs) are increasingly used for this indication. The aim of this study was to use evidence synthesis techniques to estimate net all-cause construct survival for THR with DMC performed for hip fracture. Additionally, we aimed to investigate and describe differences in all-cause construct survival (if present) between THRs performed with DMC (DMC-THR) or with a conventional bearing construct following hip fracture. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies (including joint registries), including DMC-THR for hip fracture which provided Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimates. The primary outcome was all-cause construct survival over time. The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173117). A total of 557 papers and 17 registry reports were identified. Six studies (four registry reports, one matched-pair cohort study utilising joint registry data, and one single-institution case series) met the inclusion criteria, including 17,370 DMC THRs and 167,377 conventional THRs. Five-year KM survival estimates (95% confidence intervals) were similar at 95.4% (94.9 to 95.8%) for DMC-THR and 96.2% (96.0 to 96.4%) for conventional THR. The relative risk of revision for DMC-THR at five years was 1.21 (1.05 to 1.41). These results suggest that DMC-THR has a lower all-cause survival than conventional THR following hip fracture. This analysis does not support the routine use of DMC-THR over conventional bearing THR.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Indications, complications, and clinical outcomes of fixation and acute total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of acetabular fractures: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Acetabular fracture fixation can be challenging, especially in the elderly. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) alone may not allow for early weight bearing and is associated with a high rate of secondary osteoarthritis; therefore, a combined hip procedure (CHP) or ORIF with acute total hip arthroplasty, may be beneficial in this population. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of all reported cases of CHP.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies analyzing acetabular fractures in the elderly managed with a combined hip procedure (CHP). The research was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. The included studies' methodological quality was evaluated using the MINORS score. The present study was registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Eleven clinical studies were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 74.4 (63.2-78) years. Low-energy trauma was the most common mechanism of injury (64%). The most prevalent fracture pattern was the anterior column and posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT) (30.6%). The Kocher-Langenbeck approach was preferred for ORIF of posterior fractures and hip arthroplasty. The ilioinguinal approach and modified Stoppa were generally used for anterior fractures. The overall complication rate was 12.2%, and hip dislocation was the most frequent cause of reoperation (4.4%). The average Harris Hip Score reported postoperatively was 81.6 points, which was considered "good."

CONCLUSIONS

CHP is a safe treatment for elderly acetabular fractures with an acceptable complication and reoperation rate that results in good clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level of evidence IV.

Risk Factors for Dislocation following Total Hip Arthroplasty in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed on 18th August 2022 using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science electronic databases, and a manual search. The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. Statistical analysis includes assessment of heterogeneity and data synthesis using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Review of five studies including 2865 patients and 116 dislocated hips found that lower body mass index (BMI) (SMD = 0.22, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), Crowe classification type IV versus I, II, and III (OR = 2.70, p = 0.004, I2 = 51%), higher cup inclination (SMD = 0.39 p = 0.0007, I2 = 0%), femoral head size < 28 mm (OR = 5.07, p = 0.003, I2 = 71%), lateral surgical approach (OR = 1.96, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%), and postoperative infection (OR = 6.26, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%) were significant risk factors. However, age, gender, cup anteversion, femoral osteotomy, vertical (V-COR) centre of rotation, intraoperative fracture, preoperative and postoperative leg length discrepancy (LLD) and previous hip surgery were not found to be significant risk factors.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores importance of these risk factors in THA planning for DDH patients to reduce dislocation risk. Further research needed to understand mechanisms.

What is the rate of successful closed reduction of dislocated dual mobility cups following complex revision hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the difference in success rates of closed reduction in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed with a dual mobility (DM) implant. Our objective was to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a difference in success rates of closed reduction between septic and aseptic revision THA with a DM implant? (2) Is closed or open reduction more successful in preventing re-dislocation?

METHODS

Between January 2009 and October 2021, 924 revisions were performed with a DM implant. All patients presenting to our institution with a dislocation following septic or aseptic revision THA using a cemented DM cup were included in this study. We analyzed 106 cases of dislocation in 74 patients. For all patients, we collected reason for revision, and classified index surgery as septic or aseptic.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 dislocations occurred (106/924, 11.5%). Thirty-nine cases (52.7%) had a dislocation after a septic exchange THA, while in 35 patients (47.3%), a dislocation occurred after an aseptic rTHA. In 29 patients (39.2%), successful closed reduction under general anesthesia was feasible, while the majority of cases required open reduction. In 31 of these patients (67.4%), open reduction was combined with a revision arthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of DM cup dislocation, there is a low success rate of closed reduction. To prevent re-dislocation, total revision leads to a significantly reduced risk compared to open or closed reduction alone. Careful X-ray analysis for a halo sign showing intra-prosthetic DM cup dislocation is mandatory to avoid futile reduction attempts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Custom-made implants for massive acetabular bone loss: accuracy with CT assessment

BACKGROUND

Custom-made implants are a valid option in revision total hip arthroplasty to address massive acetabular bone loss. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of custom-made acetabular implants between preoperative planning and postoperative positioning using CT scans.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis, three patients who underwent an acetabular custom-made prosthesis were identified. The custom-made designs were planned through 3D CT analysis considering surgical points of attention. The accuracy of intended implants positioning was assessed by comparing pre- and postoperative CT analyzing the center of rotation (CoR), anteversion, inclination, screws, and implant surface in contact with the bone.

RESULTS

The three cases presented satisfactory accuracy in positioning. A malpositioning in the third case was observed due to the posterization of the CoR of the implant of more than 10 mm. The other CoR vectors considered in the third patient and all vectors in the other two cases fall within 10 mm. All the cases were positioned with a difference of less than 10° of anteversion and inclination with respect to the planning.

CONCLUSIONS

The current case series revealed promising accuracy in the positioning of custom-made acetabular prosthesis comparing the planned implant in preoperative CT with postoperative CT.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Five-year polyethylene cup migration and PE wear of the Anatomic Dual Mobility acetabular construct

INTRODUCTION

Dual mobility implants have been successful in reducing postoperative hip dislocation but mid-term results of cup migration and polyethylene wear are missing in the literature. Therefore, we measured migration and wear at 5-year follow-up using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of 44 patients (mean age 73, 36 female) with heterogeneous indications for hip arthroplasty but all with a high risk of hip dislocation received total hip replacement (THA) with The Anatomic Dual Mobility X3 monoblock acetabular construct and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner. RSA images and Oxford Hip Scores were obtained perioperatively and 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively. Cup migration and polyethylene wear were calculated using RSA.

RESULTS

Mean 2-year proximal cup translation was 0.26 mm (95% CI 0.17; 0.36). Proximal cup translation was stable from 1- to 5-year follow-up. Mean 2-year cup inclination (z-rotation) was 0.23° (95% CI - 0.22; 0.68) and was greater in patients with osteoporosis compared to patients without osteoporosis (p = 0.04). Using 1-year follow-up as baseline, the 3D polyethylene wear rate was 0.07 mm/year (0.05; 0.10). Oxford hip scores improved 19 (95% CI 14; 24) points from mean 21 (range 4; 39) at baseline, to 40 (9; 48) 2 years postoperatively. There were no progressive radiolucent lines > 1 mm. There was 1 revision for offset correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic Dual Mobility monoblock cups were well-fixed, the polyethylene wear rate was low, and the clinical outcomes were good until 5-year follow-up suggesting good implant survival in patients of different age groups and with heterogeneous indications for THA.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

"Incidence of Instability Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Continues to Decline in the Medicare Population"

BACKGROUND

Instability has been the primary cause of failure following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) leading to revision hip surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine if instability rates have further declined following advances in primary THA including dual mobility articulations, direct anterior approaches, advanced technologies, and improved knowledge of the hip-spine relationships.

METHODS

Using the 5% Medicare Part B claims data from 1999 to 2019, we identified 81,573 patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis. Patients who experienced instability at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were identified. Multivariate cox regression analyses evaluated the effect of patient and procedure characteristics on the risk for instability.

RESULTS

Instability at 1 year following primary THA declined from approximately 4% in 2000 to 2.3% in 2010 and 1.6% in 2018. The leading cause of revision surgery was infection (18.6%), followed by peri-prosthetic fracture (14%), mechanical loosening (11.5%), and instability (9.4%). High risk groups for instability continue to include increased age, higher Charlson index, obesity, lumbar spine pathology, and neurocognitive disorders.

CONCLUSION

Instability is no longer the leading etiology of failure following primary THA with a decline of approximately 40% over the past decade. Infection, periprosthetic fracture, mechanical loosening, and then instability are now the leading causes of failure. Multiple factors may play a role in the decline of instability including increased use of dual mobility articulations, direct anterior approaches, improved knowledge of the hip-spine relationships, and use of advanced technologies.

Does the Change of Acetabular Anteversion Result From Lumbar Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy in Ankylosing Spondylitis-Related Kyphosis After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the change in acetabular anteversion (AA) after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients with thoracolumbar kyphosis who have already undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

AS patients with thoracolumbar kyphosis following lumbar PSO from January 2005 to January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Only the patients performed with THA prior to the PSO were included. AA was measured on the full-length standing posterior-anterior radiographs using the ellipse method.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (34 hips) with a mean age of 36.8 years (range, 22 to 63 years) were included. After lumbar PSO, AA was reduced from 18.59° to 5.85° (P < 0.001). Postoperative change in AA was correlated with the spinal deformity correction. Additionally, the change in AA postoperatively was correlated with pelvic incidence (PI) (R = 0.346, P = 0.045). Although the postoperative change in sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was larger in the patients after L2 or L3 PSO (153.97 mm vs 70.03 mm, P = 0.006), no difference was found in the postoperative change in AA (12.83° vs 10.96°, P = 0.540) compared with the patients following L1 PSO.

CONCLUSIONS

AA was significantly decreased following lumbar PSO and the postoperative change in AA was correlated with the magnitude of spinal deformity correction. Notably, the effect of osteotomy level on the postoperative change in AA was limited in the AS patients underwent 1-level PSO.

Comparing dislocation rates by approach following elective primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility components can be implanted during total hip arthroplasty (THA) for primary osteoarthritis via a direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA), or posterior/posterolateral approach (PLA). This review compares dual mobility hip dislocation rates using these approaches for elective primary THA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for articles published after January 1, 2006 that reported dislocation rates for adult patients after primary THA with dual mobility implants. Articles were excluded if they reported revision procedures, nonelective THA for femoral neck fractures, acetabular defects requiring supplemental implants, prior surgery, or ≤ 5 patients. The primary outcome was hip dislocation rate. Secondary outcomes included infection, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score.

RESULTS

After screening 542 articles, 63 met inclusion criteria. Due to study heterogeneity, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported DAA, 5 reported ALA, 6 reported the DLA, and 56 reported PLA. Study size ranged from 41 to 2,601 patients. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 25 years. Rates of infection and dislocation were low; 80% of ALA, 87.5% of DAA, 100% of DLA, and 82.1% of PLA studies reported zero postoperative dislocations. Studies reporting postoperative HHS and PMA scores showed considerable improvement for all approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary THA with dual mobility implants rarely experience postoperative dislocation, regardless of surgical approach. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to confirm these findings.

Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing a Monoblock Dual-Mobility Construct Without Posterior Hip Precautions: A Series of 580 Hips with One Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Instability remains a devastating complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Here we describe a mini-posterior approach with a monoblock dual-mobility implant without "traditional posterior hip precautions" yielding excellent results.

METHODS

There were 580 consecutive hips in 575 patients who underwent THA utilizing a monoblock dual-mobility implant and a mini-posterior approach. With this technique, the acetabular component positioning does not rely on tradition intra-operative radiographic abduction and anteversion goals, but rather uses patient-specific anatomic landmarks (anterior acetabular rim and, when visible, the transverse acetabular ligament) to set cup position; stability is assessed with a significant, dynamic intra-operative test of range of motion. Patients' mean age was 64 years (range, 21 to 94) and 53.7% were women.

RESULTS

Mean abduction was 48.4° (range, 29° to 68°) and mean anteversion was 24.7° (range, -1 to 51°). Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores improved in every measured domain from preoperative to final postoperative visit. There were seven (1.2%) patients who required reoperation, with mean time to reoperation of 1.3 months (range, one to 176 days). Only one patient (0.2%) who had a pre-operative history of spinal cord injury and Charcot arthropathy dislocated.

CONCLUSION

A posterior approach hip surgeon may want to consider using a monoblock dual-mobility construct and avoidance of traditional posterior hip precautions to achieve early hip stability with an extremely low dislocation rate and high patient satisfaction scores.

Dislocation Rates of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion and Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease With and Without Utilization of Dual Mobility Cups: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a previous history of lumbar spine fusion (LSF) are at increased risk of dislocation. The purpose of this study was to compare the 90-day and 1-year dislocation rates of patients with LSF or lumbar degenerative disk disease who underwent primary THA with and without dual mobility (DM) constructs.

METHODS

An American Joint Replacement Registry data set of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing primary THA with minimum 1-year follow-up with a history of prior LSF or a diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disk disease was created. DM status was identified, and dislocation and all-cause revision at 90 days and 1 year were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 15,572 patients met study criteria. The overall dislocation rates for the non-DM and DM groups were 1.17% and 0.68%, respectively, at 90 days, and 1.68% and 0.91%, respectively, at 1 year ( P = 0.005). The odds of 90-day (OR = 0.578, [ P = 0.0328]) and 1-year (OR = 0.534, [ P = 0.0044]) dislocation were significantly less with DM constructs, compared with non-DM constructs. No statistically significant difference was observed in revision rates between groups.

DISCUSSION

This large registry-based study identified a reduced risk of dislocation in patients at risk for spinal stiffness when a DM compared with non-DM construct was used in primary THA at 90-day and 1-year follow-up intervals. Our data support the use of DM constructs in high-risk patients with stiff spines and altered spinopelvic mobility as a promising option to mitigate the risk of postoperative hip instability after primary THA.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III. Therapeutic retrospective cohort.

Tricalcium Phosphate as a Bone Substitute to Treat Massive Acetabular Bone Defects in Hip Revision Surgery: A Systematic Review and Initial Clinical Experience with 11 Cases

The use of tricalcium phosphate (TCP) as a bone substitute is gaining increasing interest to treat severe acetabular bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence regarding the efficacy of this material. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. The study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS) for all studies. A total of eight clinical studies (230 patients) were identified: six on TCP used as biphasic ceramics composed of TCP and hydroxyapatite (HA), and two as pure-phase ceramics consisting of TCP. The literature analysis showed eight retrospective case series, of which only two were comparative studies. The mCMS showed an overall poor methodology (mean score 39.5). While the number of studies and their methodology are still limited, the available evidence suggests safety and overall promising results. A total of 11 cases that underwent rTHA with a pure-phase ceramic presented satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes at initial short-term follow-up. Further studies at long-term follow-up, involving a larger number of patients, are needed before drawing more definitive conclusions on the potential of TCP for the treatment of patients who undergo rTHA.

Dual-Mobility Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) were introduced in France more than 40 years ago and are increasingly used not only in hip revision but also primary hip arthroplasty. Due to a simulated large-head articulation and increased jumping distance, DMCs can contribute to a high range of motion in the hip joint and reduce the risk of instability. Numerous studies have reported low dislocation rates and high survival rates in the mid-term follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term data, especially on primary hip replacement, remain limited, and the effect of recent designs and material innovations is still unclear. Therefore, primary DMCs are mainly proposed in patients at high risk for dislocation (i.e. pelvitrochanteric insufficiency, compromised spinopelvic mobility, neuromuscular disorders, obesity and femoral neck fractures). Based on a review of recently published studies referring to these indications, the current study discusses the advantages and disadvantages of DMCs.

The Impact of Epilepsy on Complication Rates After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how epilepsy may affect total joint arthroplasty outcomes. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of epilepsy on prosthesis-related complications following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database. Patients who have epilepsy underwent a primary THA (n = 6,981) and TKA (n = 4,987) and were matched 1:4 (THA, n = 27,924; TKA, n = 19,948). Rates of low-energy falls and prosthesis-related complications within 2 years postoperatively were compared for patients who did and did not have epilepsy with multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

After primary TKA, patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of aseptic revision (4.3% versus 3.5%, odds ratio [OR] 1.21, P = .017) and revision for prosthetic joint infection (1.8% versus 1.3%, OR 1.29, P = .041). THA patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of prosthetic dislocation (3.2% versus 1.9%, OR 1.54, P < .001), periprosthetic fracture (2.2% versus 0.8%, OR 2.39, P < .001), and aseptic loosening (1.7% versus 1.1%, OR 1.40, P = .002). Rates of low-energy falls within 2 years after TKA (14.1% versus 6.4%, OR 2.19, P < .001) and THA (33.6% versus 7.5%, OR 5.95, P < .001) were also significantly higher for patients who have epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

Epilepsy was associated with significantly higher rates of falls (P < .001) and prosthesis-related complications after primary THA (P < .05) and TKA (P < .05). Precautions should be implemented in this population during intraoperative and perioperative decision-making to reduce complication risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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.

Use of dual-mobility cup in primary total hip arthroplasties: an Italian regional register (RIPO) study on three thousand, seven hundred and ten cases

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the outcome of dual-mobility cup (DM) compared with a standard cup (SC) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the long-term follow-up based on a regional Italian joint registry (RIPO).

METHODS

The Registry of Prosthetic Orthopaedic Implant (RIPO) was consulted, looking for all primary THAs implanted from 2000 to 2019. Three thousand seven hundred ten were dual-mobility cup (DM) total hip arthroplasties (THA) and 85.816 were standard cup (SC) THAs, on a total of 89.526 primary THA. Demographics, survival rates and causes of revision were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The use of DM progressively increased from 0.4% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2018 of all primary THAs. Revision rate was 3.5% (128 on 3710) for DMC and 4.7% (4061 on 85,816) for SC. DM presented lower dislocation rate if compared to SC with 22-28-mm femoral head diameter. However, DM showed a higher risk of revision for any causes than SC with 32-mm femoral head diameter in long-term follow-up. Nevertheless, no significant difference was measured in terms of demographics and surgical approach for dislocation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The DM cup represents a valid implant solution and has a lower dislocation rate than 22-28-mm SC. A slight increase in the use of DM implants over time was observed in the RIPO. However, a larger population and a longer follow-up are needed to further monitor the survival rate of new-generation DM implants.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants

BACKGROUND

The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA.

METHODS

Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants.

RESULTS

For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants.

CONCLUSION

Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

Spinopelvic Relationship and Its Impact on Total Hip Arthroplasty

The dynamic, complex interaction among the spine, pelvis, and hip is often underappreciated, yet understanding it is vital for both arthroplasty and spinal surgeons. There is an increasing incidence of degenerative hip and spinal pathologies as a result of the ageing population. Furthermore, hip pathology can cause spine pathology and vice versa through “hip-spine” and “spine-hip syndrome.” Consequently, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and spinal fusion surgery, which both affect spinopelvic mobility, are also on the rise. Alteration in spinopelvic motion can affect the orientation of the acetabulum and, therefore, implant positioning in THA, leading to complications such as dislocation, impingement, aseptic loosening, and wear of components. This makes it imperative to assess spinopelvic motion and pelvic tilt prior to patients undergoing THA. In this paper, we explore how the surgeon should proceed to reduce risk of component malalignment, as well as the role of navigation systems in acetabular cup positioning.

Is the Revision Rate for Femoral Neck Fracture Lower for Total Hip Arthroplasty Than for Hemiarthroplasty?: A Comparison of Registry Data for Contemporary Surgical Options

BACKGROUND

When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options.

METHODS

Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered.

RESULTS

There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories.

CONCLUSIONS

When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Liner malseating is rare with two modular dual-mobility designs

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of liner malseating in two commonly used dual-mobility (DM) designs. Secondary aims included determining the risk of dislocation, survival, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 256 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) that included a DM component (144 Stryker MDM and 112 Zimmer-Biomet G7) in 233 patients, performed between January 2012 and December 2019. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed independently for malseating of the liner by five reviewers. The mean age of the patients at the time of THA was 66 years (18 to 93), 166 (65%) were female, and the mean BMI was 30 kg/m² (17 to 57). The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (2.0 to 9.2).

RESULTS

Three liners (1.2%) were malseated, including two MDMs (1.4%) and one G7 (0.9%). No clinical consequence was identified from malseating. The five-year survival free of dislocation was 97.1%, including two DM and one intraprosthetic dislocation. The five-year survival free of revision was 95.4%, with seven revisions. The mean Harris Hip Scores increased from 46 (24 to 69) preoperatively to 81 (40 to 100) at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of DM liner malseating after primary THA was low, with no known clinical consequences at mid-term follow-up. Malseating is not exclusive of design, and these findings emphasize the importance of careful evaluation of the liner after impaction to avoid this complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):598-603.

Dual-mobility constructs versus large femoral head bearings in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate.

RESULTS

9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1-1.20; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings.

Outcomes and survival of a modern dual mobility cup and uncemented collared stem in displaced femoral neck fractures at a minimum 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The choice of implant type for total hip replacement in the treatment of femoral neck fractures remains debated. Some authors advocate for the systematic use of cemented stems, while others do not use dual mobility first-line. We therefore conducted a retrospective study using a dual mobility cup (DMC) and an uncemented collared stem (UCS) in order to: (1) confirm the low dislocation rate in this indication, (2) assess other surgical complications, in particular periprosthetic fractures, (3) ensure that these benefits are maintained over time, at a minimum follow-up of 5 years and, (4) assess the rate of revision of the implants.

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis was that the dual mobility dislocation rate for the treatment of femoral neck fractures was lower than for bipolar hemiarthroplasties or single mobility hip prostheses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 244 femoral neck fractures (242 patients) treated with DMC and UCS was conducted, between 2013 and 2014. The mean age was 83±10 years (60-104). The occurrence of dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, infection of the surgical site, loosening, reoperation and revision were investigated. The HOOS Joint Replacement (JR) score was collected. The cumulative incidence with mortality was used as a competing risk.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 6 years±0.5 (5-7). At the last follow-up, 108 patients (50%) had died. Twenty-three patients (9.5%) were lost to follow-up. One case of symptomatic aseptic loosening of DMC was observed. The cumulative incidence of dislocations and periprosthetic fractures at 5 years were 2% (95% CI: 0.9-5.4) and 3% (95% CI: 1.2-6), respectively. The 5-year cumulative incidence of surgical site infections was 3.5% (95% CI: 1.8-7). The cumulative incidence of reoperations at 5 years was 7% (95% CI: 4.5-11). The causes of reoperation were periprosthetic fracture (n=6), infection (n=8), postoperative hematoma (n=2) and cup malposition (n=2). The cumulative incidence of a revision at 5 years was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.2-6). The cumulative incidence of a surgical complication from any cause at 5 years was 9% (95% CI: 6.7-14.8). The mean HOOS JR score was 79±5 (52-92).

DISCUSSION

The cumulative incidence of dislocation at 5 years is low and other surgical complications (including periprosthetic fractures) do not increase during this period for DMC associated with UCS, in femoral neck fractures. The use of this type of implant is reliable in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study without control group.

Dual-mobility versus Fixed-bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcome Comparison

Purpose

Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA.

Materials and Methods

All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes.

Results

Of the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups.

Conclusion

DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA. Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

Acetabular Component and Liner Selection for the Prevention of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

»

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis; however, dislocation remains the most common cause of revision arthroplasty.

»

Technological advancements in acetabular component design and liner options, in conjunction with a more comprehensive understanding of the spinopelvic factors that influence dislocation, will likely reduce the risk of dislocation and revision over time.

»

The contemporary liner and shell options for primary THA, in order of increasing constraint and stability, include (1) neutral, (2) lateralized, (3) face-changing (oblique), (4) lipped (high-wall) with or without lateralization, (5) modular and anatomic dual-mobility, and (6) constrained options.

»

Different liner designs can alter functional anteversion, inclination, and jump distance, and can be used to minimize a single predictable dislocation vector (lipped [high-wall] liners) or multiple vectors of instability risk when the dislocation direction is unpredictable (dual-mobility liners).

»

Liner selection should be based on the patient-specific risk of dislocation, including static anatomic (e.g., large anterior inferior iliac spine or greater trochanter morphology), dynamic anatomic (e.g., limited sitting-standing change in the sacral slope), and demographic or medical (e.g., neurocognitive disorders and obesity) risk factors.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The burden of prosthetic hip dislocations in the United States is projected to significantly increase by 2035

INTRODUCTION

Prosthetic hip dislocation is a common, costly complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite this, the national burden of prosthetic hip dislocations remains uncharacterised in the United States, especially pertaining to injuries occurring years after the index procedure. This study examines historical and projected national estimates of prosthetic hip dislocations presenting to U.S. emergency departments between 2000 and 2035.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective epidemiological study using narratives in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database (2000-2017) to identify an estimated 64,671 prosthetic hip implant dislocations presenting to U.S. emergency departments. Estimates for the prevalence of individuals living with a total hip implant were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

The national estimate of prosthetic hip dislocations presenting to U.S. emergency departments rose significantly (p < 0.001) between 2000 (n = 2395; 95% CI, 1264-3526) and 2017 (n = 8094; 95% CI, 4276-11,912). These increases are likely driven by increased numbers of people living with THA overall, since between 2000 and 2017, the average incidence of prosthetic hip dislocation (0.14%; CI 0.08-0.21%) in patients living with hip implants has not changed significantly. Linear regression modeling (R² = 0.7, p < 0.01) projected an increasing number of dislocations through 2035, predicting 10,446 national cases per year by this date.

CONCLUSIONS

Driven by increases in THA, the annual volume of prosthetic hip dislocations presenting to U.S. emergency departments has increased significantly since 2000 and is projected to continue to rise sharply. Future advances in surgical technique, prosthesis design, and injury prevention policies aimed at decreasing the rate of THA dislocation would help alleviate this mounting national health burden.

No Difference in Dislocation Rates Comparing Large Diameter Jumbo Femoral Heads and Dual-Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings reduce instability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM bearings are costly and reports of corrosion have recently emerged. Furthermore, no study has compared DM to standard bearings with large diameter femoral heads ≥40-mm. This study's purpose was to compare postoperative dislocation rates of standard and DM bearings with large femoral heads after revision THA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 301 consecutive revision THAs was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.1 months. To isolate the effect of the double articulation, standard and DM bearings with femoral heads ≥40-mm were compared. Outcomes were postoperative dislocation and reoperation within 90 days.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 182 standard bearings and 75 DM bearings. There were no differences in revision indication comparing standard and DM bearings (P = .258). Overall dislocation rate was 8.6% (22 of 257). The dislocation rate was 5.7% for standard bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads compared with 6.9% in DM bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads (P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, lower body mass index (odds ratio 1.72), female sex (odds ratio 2.01), and decreased outer femoral head diameter-to-cup component size ratio (odds ratio 1.64) were predictors of postoperative dislocation regardless of bearing type.

CONCLUSION

This study showed no difference in dislocation rates between standard and DM bearings when comparing similar femoral head diameters of ≥40-mm used in revision THAs. Considering the cost and potential deleterious issues associated with additional interfaces, DM bearings should be used judiciously considering similar results may be achieved with single-articulation bearings using large femoral heads.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Dual Mobility in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Biomechanics, Indications and Complications-Current Concepts

Dual-mobility (DM) articulations are increasingly utilized to prevent or manage hip instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA). DM cups offer enhanced stability due to the dual articulation resulting in larger jump distance and greater range of motion before impingement. Improvement in design features and biomaterials has contributed to increased interest in dual-mobility articulations due to lower risk of complications compared to their historic rates. The incidence of implant-specific complications like intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD) and wear has reduced with newer-generation implants. DM THAs are used in primary THA in patients with high risk for dislocation, e.g. neuromuscular disorder, femoral neck fracture, spinopelvic deformity, etc. They offer an attractive alternative option to constrained liner for treatment of hip instability in revision THA. The medium- to short-term results with DM THA have been encouraging in primary and revision THA. However, there are concerns of fretting, corrosion and long-term survivorship with DM THA. Hence, longer-term studies and surveillance are required for the safe use of DM THA in clinical practice.

Modular dual mobility total hip arthroplasty is a viable option for young, active patients : a mid-term follow-up study

AIMS

Dual mobility (DM) implants have been shown to reduce the dislocation rate after total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there remain concerns about the use of cobalt chrome liners inserted into titanium shells. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes, metal ion levels, and periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density (BMD) at mid-term follow-up in young, active patients receiving a modular DM THA.

METHODS

This was a prospective study involving patients aged < 65 years, with a BMI of < 35 kg/m², and University of California, Los Angeles activity score of > 6 who underwent primary THA with a modular cobalt chrome acetabular liner, highly cross-linked polyethylene mobile bearing, and a cementless titanium femoral stem. Patient-reported outcome measures, whole blood metal ion levels (μg/l), and periprosthetic femoral BMD were measured at baseline and at one, two, and five years postoperatively. The results two years postoperatively for this cohort have been previously reported.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients were enrolled. At minimum follow-up of five years, 23 (53.4%) returned for clinical and radiological review, 25 (58.1%) had metal ion analysis performed, 19 (44.2%) underwent dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and 25 (58%) completed a pain-drawing questionnaire. The mean modified Harris Hip Scores improved significantly from 54.8 (SD 19) preoperatively to 93.08 (SD 10.5) five years postoperatively (p < 0.001). One patient was revised for aseptic acetabular loosening. The mean cobalt levels increased from 0.065 μg/l (SD 0.03) to 0.08 (SD 0.05) and the mean titanium levels increased from 0.35 (SD 0.13) to 0.78 (SD 0.29). The femoral BMD ratio decreased in Gruen Zone 1 (91.9%) at five years postoperatively compared with the baseline scores at six weeks potoperatively. The femoral BMD ratio was maintained in Gruen zones 2 to 7.

CONCLUSION

The use of a modular DM component and a cementless, tapered femoral stem shows excellent mid-term survivorship with minimal concerns for corrosion and metal ion release in a cohort of young, active patients undergoing primary THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):73-77.

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.

Spine Fusions, Yoga Instructors, and Hip Fractures: The Role of Dual Mobility in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased use of dual mobility (DM) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), debate exists regarding the indications for its use. No specific algorithm exists to guide this decision-making process. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarize the currently available literature regarding the use of DM in primary THA and provide evidence-based guidelines based on specific patient populations and risk factors for instability.

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature for studies evaluating risk factors for dislocation in primary THA, as well as the clinical use and results of DM in primary THA. Based on the strength of the literature, we discuss the use of DM in specific patient populations. We provide a decision-making algorithm to determine whether a patient may be indicated for DM in primary THA.

RESULTS

Surgeons should consider preoperative patient demographics, risk factors for instability (eg, significant hip-spine issues), type of procedure to be performed (eg, conversion arthroplasty), and indications for surgery (eg, THA for femoral neck fracture). Based on this algorithmic assessment, DM may be warranted in the primary THA setting if a patient's combined risk reaches an established threshold based on the literature.

CONCLUSION

This evidence-based algorithm may help guide current practice in the use of DM in primary THA. We advocate the continued judicious use of DM in hip arthroplasty. Longer term studies are needed in order to evaluate the durability of DM, as well as any complications related to the DM articulation.

Dual mobility cup in hip arthroplasty: an in-depth analysis of joint registries

Although total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown successful results, instability remains a major complication. In recent years, dual mobility cups (DMC) have gained interest among clinicians thanks to its low rate of dislocation and good clinical results. The main aim of this work was to describe the accuracy of data on DMC from national and regional joint registries (JRs) and the available worldwide literature. We identified topics on DMC among JRs to propose a new harmonized and standardized section for DMC with the aim to understand its surveillance over the time. We extracted survival and implant data for a separate analysis. After performing a critical exclusion process, nine joint registries were considered eligible and included for final synthesis; these were the results from the available worldwide data from Joints Registries (JRs). In our study, eight analysed JRs reported a slight increase in DMC use in the last decade. In all the JRs evaluated and the available articles, dislocation remains one of the main reasons for revision and re-revision in hip arthroplasties. DMC is considered a valid construct increasingly used worldwide in primary and revision THA with the primary aim of reducing dislocation rates. Annual reports from JRs collect heterogeneous and low-quality information about outcomes and surveillance of DMC, creating a burden for clinicians to extract comparable data from different JR. Longer follow-up and a systematic registering of DMCs with international registry harmonization are needed to monitor DMC outcomes.

Dual-Mobility Articulations in Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis of the Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Femoral neck fractures have been traditionally managed with hemiarthroplasty (HA) or conventional total hip arthroplasty (CTHA). There has been recent interest in using dual-mobility components (DMC) in total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures to provide increased stability and decrease the need for future revision.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting on the use of DMC in the management of femoral neck fractures in geriatric patients. We included studies in which DMC were used alone and studies that included a comparison to total hip arthroplasty or HA. The outcomes of interest were postoperative dislocation, revision, and revision surgery rates. Two separate subgroup analyses were conducted. For the comparative studies, we analyzed the differences in outcomes using a random-effects model of relative risks. For the noncomparative studies, we estimated the cumulative incidence of the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Eleven noncomparative studies showed a cumulative incidence of dislocation to be 1.2% (95% confidence interval = 0.3% to 2.7%) when DMC were used alone. Subgroup analyses of the seven comparative studies yielded a relative risk of dislocation using DMC was 59% less than HA and 83% less than CTHA. DMC also compared favorably in terms of revision surgery and revision rates to HA. There was insufficient quality evidence to comment on revision surgery and revision rates when compared with CTHA in comparative studies, but among the noncomparative studies, there was a low rate of revision and revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed overall lower risk of dislocation using DMC compared with both CTHA and HA. There were also lower revision and revision surgery rates when DMC were used compared with HA. Further studies are required to elucidate cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes of DMC in these scenarios.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-meta-analysis.

Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aims of this meta-analysis were to: (1) validate the outcome of modern dual mobility (DM) designs in patients who had undergone primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures and (2) to identify factors that affect the outcome.

Methods

We searched for studies that assessed the outcome of modern DM-THA in primary and revision procedures that were conducted between January, 2000 to August, 2020 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews and Embase. The pooled incidence of the most common failure modes and patient reported outcomes were evaluated in patients who have received: (1) primary THA, (2) revision THA for all causes or (3) for recurrent dislocation. A meta-regression analysis was performed for each parameter to determine the association with the outcome. The study design of each study was assessed for potential bias and flaws by using the quality assessment tool for case series studies.

Results

A total of 119 studies (N= 30016 DM-THAs) were included for analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 47.3 months. The overall implant failure rate was 4.2% (primary: 2.3%, revision for all causes: 5.5%, recurrent dislocation: 6.0%). The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (primary: 0.9%, revision for all causes: 2.2%, recurrent dislocation: 2.4%), septic loosening (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes: 2.3%, recurrent dislocation: 2.5%), extra-articular dislocation (primary:0.6%, revision for all causes:1.3%, recurrent dislocation:2.5%), intra-prosthetic dislocation (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes:1.0%, recurrent dislocation:1.6%) and periprosthetic fracture (primary:0.9%, revision for all causes:0.9%, recurrent dislocation:1.3%). The multi-regression analysis identified younger age (β=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 – -0.02) and female patients (β=3.34, 95% CI 0.91–5.78) were correlated with higher implant failure rate. Age, gender, posterolateral approach and body mass index (BMI) were not risk factors for extra-articular or intra-prosthetic dislocation in this cohort. The overall Harris hip score and Merle d’Aubigné score were 84.87 and 16.36, respectively. Level of evidence of this meta-analysis was IV.

Conclusion

Modern dual-mobility designs provide satisfactory mid-term implant survival and clinical performance. Younger age and female patients might impact the outcome after DM-THA. Future research directions should focus on, (1) long-term outcome of modern dual-mobility design, including specific concerns such as intra-prosthetic dislocation and elevated metal ion, and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis of dual-mobility implant as an alternative to conventional THA for patients who are at high risk of dislocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.

Dual mobility versus unipolar total hip arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures: a single centre study

Current national guidelines (NICE) recommends that all medically fit, independently-mobile patients without cognitive impairment receive a total hip arTHAoplasty(THA) for displaced intracapsular neck of femur (NOF) fractures. Dislocation is a concern(2-10%). Dual mobility cups have been suggested to address this complication. Our study sets out to compare dislocation rates between dual mobility cups versus unipolar cups. We performed a retrospective single centre multiple surgeon study of all THAs performed for NOFs between January 2012 and May 2018. A total of 322 total hip replacements (127 dual mobility and 195 unipolar ; Age range of patients, 29 to 91, mean 70 years) were identified for analysis using a database. Data was obtained from electronic patient records and radiographs. 12 patients sustained a dislocation of their THA out of our 322 patients. Of these, 10 dislocations occurred in the unipolar group (5.13%). From the dual mobility cups, 2 had dislocations(1.57%), both with a 28mm head. Both of these dislocations were in alcohol dependent patients with increased susceptibility to falls. Statistical analysis of our data was performed using chi-squared test (p value = 0.0723) In ‘Getting It Right First Time’ (GIRFT), the authors recommend that all patients that sustain a NOF fracture meeting the criteria of a THA to be offered a dual mobility acetabular cup to reduce the risk of dislocation. The cost of the dual mobility acetabular cup is offset from the cost of overall revision surgery. Limitations of our study are its retrospective nature and selection bias.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Hemispherical Uncemented Dual-Mobility Cup Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes and No Dislocations at 2 years

BACKGROUND

The authors performed total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a novel hemispherical dual-mobility (DM) acetabular cup without a protrusive cylindro-spherical rim, intended to reduce risks of iliopsoas impingement without requiring changes to conventional intraoperative positioning as with unipolar cups. We aim to determine clinical scores and rates of dislocations, complications, and revisions of this hemispherical DM cup, with the hypothesis that this novel design would result in clinical scores and dislocation rates comparable to other contemporary DM cups with protrusive cylindro-spherical rims.

METHODS

We assessed 332 consecutive uncemented THAs performed using a hemispherical DM cup, at a minimum 2-year follow-up, using modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and noting complications and revisions. Regression analyses were conducted to determine if mHHS and OHS depended on any independent factors.

RESULTS

At 2.8 ± 0.5 years (range, 2-5), 2 patients (0.6%) had stem and cup revisions, 3 patients (1%) had isolated stem revisions, 13 patients (4%) died, and none were lost to follow-up. No dislocations occurred. For the final cohort of 305 patients (314 hips) with their original implants in place, mHHS was 92 ± 12 (range, 46-100), and OHS was 57 ± 5 (range, 34-60). Multivariable analyses revealed that mHHS and OHS decreased significantly with age (β = -0.35, P < .001, and β = -0.15, P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

With no dislocations and satisfactory clinical scores, this sizable cohort confirms that the novel hemispherical DM cup studied is effective at preventing dislocations, although longer-term follow-up remains necessary to ascertain the longevity of clinical outcomes and radiographic stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, multicentric retrospective case series.

Use of a modular hip dual-mobility articulation in patients with high risk of dislocation: a relatively small-sized acetabulum in Asian patients may limit its use

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility hip component is widely used in Europe and North America, because it effectively reduces hip dislocation in primary and revision total hip arthroplasties. However, reports were limited on the use of dual-mobility articulation in Asian populations.

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to review the use of modular dual-mobility hip articulation in Asian patients with the high risk factor for hip dislocation. We also discussed the potential concern on the use of dual-mobility articulation in Asian patients.

METHODS

From Jan 2018 to June 2019, 17 patients were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was (73.8 ± 9.5) years (range: 57-88 years). The mean size of acetabular cup and modular DM liner were (49.5 ± 3.4) mm (range, 46-58 mm) and (40.7 ± 3.4) mm (range, 38-48 mm), respectively. The mean follow-up period was (15.8 ± 3.9) months (range, 11-24 months). The primary outcome was the rate of hip dislocation. The secondary outcomes included the Harris Hip Score. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Hip dislocation, loosening, peri-prosthetic fractures, or intra-prosthetic dislocation was not found in the series. The mean preoperative and postoperative Harris Hip Scores were 42.2 ± 17.2 (range, 15-80) and 74.7 ± 13.5 (range, 52-97), respectively, giving a mean improvement of 32.5 ± 17.2 (range, 4-72). The improvement was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian patients with high risk of hip dislocation, the use of modular dual-mobility hip component produces promising outcomes without hip dislocation, but the relatively small-sized acetabulum may limit it widespread application in other populations worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

HKUCTR-2913 .

Dual mobility for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis

INTRODUCTION

Revision THA (R-THA) is thought to have a higher complication rate if compared to primary THA. Dual Mobility (DM) implants have been designed aiming for achieving greater stability, with good clinical results. However, scarce material can be found about the real improvements provided by this type of implant compared to traditional implant in Revisions of Total Hip Arthroplasties.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies were performed in December 2019. This was in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our primary outcome measure was overall survivorship and dislocation rate, either treated with a conservative method or requiring surgery.

RESULTS

Regarding the overall implant survival, we found a slight significant risk ratio, with a statistically meaningful difference between the two groups in questions in favour of the DM implant. A statistically significant difference in favour of the DM group turned out considering only the Dislocation rate Risk ratio and the aseptic loosening risk as well. No statistical difference was found between the two groups about the risk ratio of infection.

DISCUSSION

A steady increase of evidence is demonstrating the efficacy of using a DM cup system in THA revisions with low dislocation rates, but currently there is no study in the literature that demonstrates with statistically significant evidence. The main finding of the present study is that implant's Survivor and prevention of dislocation at medium follow-up showed better results with a DM if compared to a fixed-bearing cup, for Revision THA.

Simultaneous bilateral dual mobility total hip arthroplasty dislocation in a patient with hepatic encephalopathy: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Dislocation is a severe complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is one of the most common reasons for failure and revision surgery. This is the first case of a documented simultaneous bilateral dual mobility (DM) THA dislocation.

CASE PRESENTATION

A forty-nine-year-old man presented with bilateral hip pain, immobility and deformity. X-ray images demonstrated simultaneous bilateral posterior THA dislocation. Previously, the patient had presented atraumatic dislocations recurrently. When he was thoroughly re-interrogated, he complained of uncontrolled and generalized muscle contractions, which were compatible with myoclonus due to hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Multidisciplinary treatment was performed satisfactorily to control myoclonus symptomatology and to prevent dislocation.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Patient's most important risk factor was a neuromuscular disorder, which we initially gave little notice and undervalued. HE is a serious but reversible syndrome, observed in patients with liver dysfunction. It leads to a wide spectrum of neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Management is based on prevention of episodes, avoiding the underlying triggers. Due to the high risk for dislocation of our patient, we decided to use DM cups bilaterally. This system has demonstrated lower rates of dislocation.

CONCLUSION

This case report reminds us that a careful evaluation through meticulous history and physical examination are mandatory when faced with recurrent instability. Furthermore, prevention of dislocation is vastly preferable to treating this challenging complication. High-risk patients should be identified, and appropriate surgical approach, technique and implants have to be collectively used to reach a strategy that mitigates and ideally prevents dislocation.

Evaluation of Dislocation Risk Factors With Total Hip Arthroplasty in Developmental Hip Dysplasia Patients: A Multivariate Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the risk factors for dislocation in patients diagnosed with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) who underwent total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients who developed dislocation and compared them with 400 patients in the control group without hip instability. Patients-, surgery-, and implant-related factors were investigated. Risk factors were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 32.3 months. The mean time to dislocation was 4.4 months. There were 7 men (17.5%) and 33 women (82.5%) in the dislocation group and 83 men (20.7%) and 317 women (79.3%) in the control group (P = .627). Diabetes mellitus (DM; P = .032) and history of previous hip surgery for DDH were associated with dislocation (P < .001). The subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy (P = .001), acetabular inclination (P = .037), acetabular anteversion (P < .001), femoral head size (P < .001), and postoperative infection (P = .003) were associated with dislocation. Major predictors of hip dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in patients with DDH were previous hip surgery (odds ratio [OR], 6.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-24.6; P = .004), high hip center (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.31-6.38; P = .008), DM (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.06-6.80; P = .037), and acetabular inclination (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.09-6.26; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Patients with DM and previous hip surgery should be informed about increased dislocation rates. Using a larger head diameter and restoration of the true hip rotation center are essential to prevent hip dislocation in these patients. Furthermore, accurate positioning of the acetabular inclination and anteversion are also important.

Adverse Local Tissue Reaction due to Acetabular Corrosion in Modular Dual-Mobility Constructs

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been reported to reduce dislocation rates, especially in high-risk patients, and are being rapidly adopted in primary and revision THAs. However, this technology introduces additional interfaces that have the potential to result in unforeseen complications. We present a series of 3 patients with mechanically assisted crevice corrosion at the acetabular component-metal dual-mobility liner interface. Consequently, we urge judicious use and close clinical observation of this new, effective technology in THA.

Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

AIMS

To evaluate the rate of dislocation following dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (DM-THA) in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures, and to compare rates of dislocation, surgical-site infection, reoperation, and one-year mortality between DM-THA and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA).

METHODS

Studies were selected based on the following criteria: 1) study design (retrospective cohort studies, prospective cohort studies, retrospective comparative studies, prospective comparative studies, and randomized controlled studies (RCTs)); 2) study population (patients with femoral neck fracture); 3) intervention (DM-THA or BHA); and 4) outcomes (complications during postoperative follow-up and clinical results). Pooled meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the dislocation rate after DM-THA and to compare outcomes between DM-THA and BHA.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies (ten cohort studies on DM-THA and seven comparative studies of DM-THA and BHA) were selected. These studies included 2,793 patients (2,799 hips), made up of 2,263 DM-THA patients (2,269 hips) and 530 BHA patients (530 hips). In all, 16 studies were analyzed to evaluate dislocation rate after DM-THA. The cumulative dislocation rate was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3 to 5). Seven studies were analyzed to compare the rates dislocation and surgical-site infection. The rate of dislocation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (risk ratio (RR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53, p < 0.001, Z -4.11). There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical-site infection between the two groups (p = 0.580). Six studies reported all-cause reoperations. The rate of reoperation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78, p = 0.003, Z -3.01). Five studies reported one-year mortality. The mortality rate was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.58 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, Z -4.2).

CONCLUSION

While the evidence available consisted mainly of non-randomized studies, DM-THA appeared to be a viable option for patients with displaced fractures of the femoral neck, with better reported rates of dislocation, reoperation, and mortality than BHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1457-1466.

Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

Aims

To evaluate the rate of dislocation following dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (DM-THA) in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures, and to compare rates of dislocation, surgical-site infection, reoperation, and one-year mortality between DM-THA and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA).

Methods

Studies were selected based on the following criteria: 1) study design (retrospective cohort studies, prospective cohort studies, retrospective comparative studies, prospective comparative studies, and randomized controlled studies (RCTs)); 2) study population (patients with femoral neck fracture); 3) intervention (DM-THA or BHA); and 4) outcomes (complications during postoperative follow-up and clinical results). Pooled meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the dislocation rate after DM-THA and to compare outcomes between DM-THA and BHA.

Results

A total of 17 studies (ten cohort studies on DM-THA and seven comparative studies of DM-THA and BHA) were selected. These studies included 2,793 patients (2,799 hips), made up of 2,263 DM-THA patients (2,269 hips) and 530 BHA patients (530 hips). In all, 16 studies were analyzed to evaluate dislocation rate after DM-THA. The cumulative dislocation rate was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3 to 5). Seven studies were analyzed to compare the rates dislocation and surgical-site infection. The rate of dislocation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (risk ratio (RR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53, p < 0.001, Z −4.11). There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical-site infection between the two groups (p = 0.580). Six studies reported all-cause reoperations. The rate of reoperation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78, p = 0.003, Z −3.01). Five studies reported one-year mortality. The mortality rate was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.58 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, Z −4.2).

Conclusion

While the evidence available consisted mainly of non-randomized studies, DM-THA appeared to be a viable option for patients with displaced fractures of the femoral neck, with better reported rates of dislocation, reoperation, and mortality than BHA.