What is the failure rate of constrained liners in complex revision total hip arthroplasty?

Constrained Liners During Acetabular Revision: Clinical Results of an Impingement Avoidance Strategy

BACKGROUND

Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a challenging problem. Component revision or bearing exchange can be successful; however, constraints may be necessary. This study evaluated the results of revision THA for instability that required constrained liners (CLs) to determine whether revising or retaining the acetabular component is preferred.

METHODS

This single-surgeon retrospective study included 50 consecutive patients who required a CL during acetabular revision for instability. Indications for constraint included the absence of functioning abductors and failed previous CL or dual mobility liner. A CL was used in existing cups if the cup position was deemed acceptable with a reasonable impingement-free arc of motion. If unacceptable, it was revised, or, if the internal diameter allowed, a CL was cemented into the existing cup in a "face changing" position to minimize impingement. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability occurred in 15 of 50 patients overall (30%). Results were analyzed, and patients were separated into the following two groups based on whether the cup/liner position was changed: group 1, cup revision or cemented CL with "face change" (FC) (n = 28), and group 2, CL implanted into existing cup without FC (n = 22).

RESULTS

Group 1 had recurrent instability in four of 28 cases (14%), whereas group 2 had instability in 11 of 22 (50%) cases (P = 0.012). Cemented liners with FC failed in four of 16 cases. Cup revision had the lowest rate of recurrent instability (zero of 12) versus 15 of 38 (39%) when the cup was retained (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated significantly lower rates of recurrent instability when CLs can be positioned to minimize impingement, either by revising the cup or cementing the liner independent of the existing cup: a so-called "FC." Cup revision demonstrated the lowest rate of recurrent instability with predictable osteointegration at the mean 4-year follow-up.

Dual-mobility implants in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common and successful operation. However, dislocation remains a significant cause of implant failure in fixed-bearing designs. This study investigated the effect of dual-mobility implants (DM) compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants on all-cause revisions, revisions due to dislocation, post-operative complications and functional scores in patients undergoing primary and revision THA.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including studies that compared DM with FB implants in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023403736). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from the time of database inception to March 12, 2023. Eligible studies underwent meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a random-effects maximum-likelihood, where appropriate.

Results

Eight comparative, non-randomised studies involving 2810 DM implants and 3188 FB implants were included. In primary THA, there was an imprecise estimate of the difference in all-cause revision (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.25-2.72) and a significant benefit for the DM cohort in revision due to dislocation (OR 0.08, 95 % CI 0.02-0.28). In revision THA, the DM cohort showed benefit in all-cause revision (OR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.31-1.05) and revision due to dislocation (OR 0.14, 95 % CI 0.04-0.53). DM implants were associated with a lower incidence of implant dislocation and infection. The analysis of functional outcomes was limited due to reporting limitations. No intraprosthetic dislocations were observed.

Conclusion

The results suggest that contemporary DM designs may be advantageous in reducing the risk of all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, and post-operative complication incidence at mid-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term risk profile of this design, especially in the revision context.

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).

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.