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

Modular dual-mobility constructs outperformed large femoral heads in 299 revision total hip arthroplasties at mid-term follow-up

Aims

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications.

Methods

We identified 299 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from March 2011 to July 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n = 65), dislocation (n = 58), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n = 57) were the most common reasons for index revision. MDM constructs were used in 123 cases, and LFHs were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years (28 to 93), mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 (18 to 55), and 45% (n = 136) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 12).

Results

The ten-year survival free of re-revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 95 to 100) in the MDM cohort and 91% (95% CI 84 to 96) in the LFH cohort, with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 7.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 40.8); p = 0.023). The ten-year survival free of any re-revision was 92% (95% CI 82 to 99%) in the MDM cohort and 84% (95% CI 74 to 90) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.9); p = 0.024). The ten-year survival free of any dislocation was 95% (95% CI 85 to 99) in the MDM cohort and 87% (95% CI 78 to 92) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.3); p = 0.028). There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.

Conclusion

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs with a MDM construct safely and effectively lowered the risk of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and any dislocation compared to LFH at mid-term follow-up. There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.

Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility cups following failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures at a mean follow-up of 6 years

INTRODUCTION

Performing total hip arthroplasty (THA) after failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures (PFF) is known to be associated with high rates of complications. Dual mobility cups (DMC) are known to lower dislocation events in high-risk patients. Very few reports investigated the outcomes of THA using DMC following failure of internal fixation for PFF.

METHODS

This is a retrospective monocentric continuous study of 31 patients who underwent THA with DMC after failed internal fixation of PFF. The clinical assessment was based on the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) at the last follow-up. The complication rates and radiological analyses were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 5.96 ± 4.2 years. At the last follow-up, the mean mHHS was 92.9 ± 9.1 with 71% of the patients describing their operated hip as a forgotten hip. No dislocation or aseptic loosening events were noted. One patient developed a septic loosening of the implant. No significant radiological changes were recorded. Sixteen stems (51.6%) were placed in a neutral position, 13 (42%) in valgus (2.74 ± 1.72°), and 2 (6.4%) in varus (6.94 ± 2.02°).

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the advantage of using DMC following failed internal fixation of PFF in reducing dislocation and complication events in this high-risk population.

Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty: Should It Be Revised Using Dual Mobility Implants? A Retrospective Analysis from the R.I.P.O. Registry

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33-96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48-92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.

Is Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup a Reliable Option in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Background: Instability is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify the different uses and outcomes according to the indications of the cemented DMC (C-DMC). Methods: A systematic review was performed using the keywords "Cemented Dual Mobility Cup" or "Cemented Tripolar Cup" without a publication year limit. Of the 465 studies identified, only 56 were eligible for the study. Results: The overall number of C-DMC was 3452 in 3426 patients. The mean follow-up was 45.9 months (range 12-98.4). In most of the cases (74.5%) C-DMC was used in a revision setting. In 57.5% DMC was cemented directly into the bone, in 39.6% into an acetabular reinforcement and in 3.2% into a pre-existing cup. The overall dislocation rate was 2.9%. The most frequent postoperative complications were periprosthetic infections (2%); aseptic loosening (1.1%) and mechanical failure (0.5%). The overall revision rate was 4.4%. The average survival rate of C-DMC at the last follow-up was 93.5%. Conclusions: C-DMC represents an effective treatment option to limit the risk of dislocations and complications for both primary and revision surgery. C-DMC has good clinical outcomes and a low complication rate.

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.

Acetabular reconstruction after advanced acetabular metastasis resection: Modified Harrington technique with a Kerboull reinforcement device

The surgical treatment of acetabular bone metastases rests on total hip arthroplasty (THA). In the event of major bone defects, the reconstruction may prove challenging. Two complicating factors are the need to obtain a mechanically stable acetabulum and the unfeasibility of using an autograft to increase the bone stock. The technique described in 1981 by Harrington involves implanting steel rods to reinforce the pelvis before sealing the prosthetic cup. We have now been using this technique for several years, and based on our accumulated experience we introduced several substantial modifications. The most important among them is the use of a Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD) in addition to the iliac pins. This reinforcement of the acetabulum, which is widely used for THA, serves as the basis for guiding the reconstruction, while also facilitating the sealing of the prosthetic cup. Furthermore, we use centrally threaded rods to avoid secondary displacement. Finally, we routinely use a dual-mobility cemented cup to decrease the risk of dislocation. Here, we describe our acetabular reconstruction technique based on a modified Harrington technique, which is used for acetabular reconstruction in patients with advanced acetabular metastases managed at our French referral centre.

Influence of dual-mobility acetabular implants on revision and survivorship of cup and Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs in aseptic acetabular loosening

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility (DM) acetabular implants have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent postoperative instability, with excellent mid-term survivorship. However, few comparative studies assessed the long-term outcomes of DM implants used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular revision. The present study aimed to compare long-term survivorship, dislocation rates and clinical outcome between DM acetabular implants and conventional single-bearing (SB) implants when cemented in a reinforcement ring.

HYPOTHESIS

Dual-mobility implants are associated with equivalent survivorship and lower dislocation rates than SB implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study included 60 revision THAs for aseptic loosening using a Kerboull-type reinforcement ring, and finally included 2 groups of 23 patients with either DM or SB cemented acetabular implants after matching for age, gender, BMI and preoperative Harris hip score. Mean follow-up was 10 years (range, 6-14 years). Acetabular implant survivorship, dislocation rate and radiographic failure incidence (>5mm migration, progressive radiolucency, graft non-integration, reinforcement ring breakage) were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes used the Harris hip score, the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score and the Parker score.

RESULTS

Survivorship free of aseptic acetabular re-revision was 89% at 10 years, with no significant difference between DM and SB (91% and 86%, respectively; p=0.54). Single-bearing implants showed a hazard ratio for dislocation of 6.7 (95% CI, 1.5-29.6; p=0.01) compared to DM implants. There were no significant differences in radiologic failure (10-year survivorship 72% and 64%, respectively; p=0.88) or functional scores.

DISCUSSION

The present study confirmed the impact of dual-mobility implants in reducing long-term dislocation risk when used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular aseptic revision, with no increased risk of re-revision compared to conventional single-bearing implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative retrospective study.

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.

The Patient With Chronic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocations: A Case Series of Five Patients Who Underwent Revision THA Using Polypropylene Mesh for Capsular Reconstruction

We report a case series of 5 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a polypropylene mesh for capsular reconstruction for chronic THA instability. The average follow-up is 16.6 months (range, 9-20 months). There were no postoperative dislocations in our series. Three patients had previous infections with two-stage revisions before final revision surgery and were infection free at their most recent follow-up. One patient developed a prosthetic joint infection 2 months postoperatively. The use of a polypropylene mesh appears to be another tool that surgeons can use when dealing with the difficult dilemma on how to treat the patient with chronic THA instability and severe abductor and capsular tissue loss.

Study protocol: Effectiveness of dual-mobility cups compared with uni-polar cups for preventing dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients - design of a randomized controlled trial nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

Background and purpose - Dislocation is the leading reason for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual-mobility (DM) cup was developed to provide more stability and mechanically reduce the risk of dislocation. Despite the increased use of DM cups, high-quality evidence of their (cost-)effectiveness is lacking. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether there is a difference in the number of hip dislocations following primary THA, using the posterolateral approach, with a DM cup compared with a unipolar (UP) cup in elderly patients 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the number of revision surgeries, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness.Methods and analysis - This is a prospective multicenter nationwide, single-blinded RCT nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. Patients ≥ 70 years old, undergoing elective primary THA using the posterolateral approach, will be eligible. After written informed consent, 1,100 participants will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The intervention group receives a THA with a DM cup and the control group a THA with a UP cup. PROMs are collected preoperatively, and 3 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary outcome is the difference in number of dislocations between the UP and DM cup within 1 year, reported in the registry (revisions), or by the patients (closed or open reduction). Data will be analyzed using multilevel models as appropriate for each outcome (linear/logistic/survival). An economic evaluation will be performed from the healthcare and societal perspective, for dislocation and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).Trial registration - This RCT is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identification number NCT04031820.