Liner malseating is rare with two modular dual-mobility designs

Dual-mobility tripod cup for revision hip arthroplasty: long-term (five to fourteen years) evaluation of a new generation cementless implant

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the survivorships of a new generation cementless DMC with tripod additional fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty and complications at a minimum five year follow-up.

METHODS

One hundred and fifteen revisions (THA) treated with tripod DMC performed between 2009 and 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Acetabular defects were classified as Paprosky 1 (n = 38, 33%), 2 (n = 75, 65%) or 3 (n = 2, 2%). Unipolar or bipolar revision was performed for the following indications: aseptic acetabular loosening (63%), infection (14%), aseptic bipolar loosening (11%), instability (4%), aseptic femoral loosening (3%), ALVAL (3%) and iliopsoas impingement (2%). Mean follow-up was 9.4 years ± two (range, 5 to 14).

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, a single episode of dislocation occurred within three months after the procedure (0.8%) with no revision. Three cases of aseptic loosening were diagnosed (2.6%). Four infections (3.5%) required reoperation: three required a two stage bipolar revision; one was treated by DAIR procedure. At the latest follow-up, the survivorship of the acetabular cup for aseptic loosening was 98% [95% CI (91.2-99.4)] and for any reasons was 94.4% [95% CI (90.1%-98.9%)]; the mean HHS improved from 60 points (range, 18-94 points) to 83 points (range, 37-100 points) (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study reports a low complication rate in favour of the use of a tripod DMC in revision THA with a satisfactory survivorship at a ten year follow-up.

Cemented dual-mobility constructs in uncemented revision acetabular components

Aims

Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.

Methods

We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97).

Results

There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case.

Conclusion

While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface.

Dual Mobility for Oncological Hip Reconstruction: Significantly Reduced Dislocation Rates at 5 years

BACKGROUND

Although dual mobility total hip arthroplasty has become increasingly common in recent years, limited remains known on dual mobility in surgical oncology. This university-based investigation compared dislocation and revision rates of DMs, conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA), and hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for oncological hip reconstruction.

METHODS

An institutional tumor registry was used to identify 221 patients undergoing 45 DMs, 67 conventional THAs, and 109 HAs, performed for 17 primary hip tumors and 204 hip metastases between 2010 and 2020. The median age at surgery was 65 years, and 52% were female. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves and log-rank tests were done to compare dislocation and revision rates among all 221 patients, after a one-to-one propensity match, based on age, sex, tumor type (metastasis, primary tumor), and tumor localization (femur, acetabulum).

RESULTS

The 5-year survivorship free of dislocation was 98% in DMs, 66% in conventional THAs ( P = 0.03; all P values compared with DMs), and 97% among HAs ( P = 0.48). The 5-year survivorship free of revision was 69% in DMs, 62% in conventional THAs ( P = 0.68), and 92% in HAs ( P = 0.06). After propensity matching, the 5-year survivorship free of dislocation was 42% in 45 conventional THAs ( P = 0.027; compared with all 45 DMs) and 89% in 16 matched HAs ( P = 0.19; compared with 16 DMs with femoral involvement only). The 5-year survivorship free of revision was 40% in matched conventional THAs ( P = 0.91) and 100% in matched HAs ( P = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

DMs showed markedly lower rates of dislocation than conventional THAs, with overall revision rates remaining comparable among different designs. DMs should be considered the option of choice for oncological hip reconstruction if compared with conventional THAs. HAs are a feasible alternative when encountering femoral disease involvement only.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

No clinical consequence of liner malseating in dual-mobility THAs at short term: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Liner malseating is well described in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, limited information is known on this complication among dual-mobility articulations. As such, this systematic review analyzed liner malseating in dual-mobility THAs concerning prevalence, clinical implications, and associated risk factors.

METHODS

A PRISMA criteria-based systematic review was performed, and PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane used as data bases. All original studies from 1980 to 2022 were considered eligible for inclusion, and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

In total, five retrospective cohort studies with 2330 patients (2673 dual-mobility THAs) were included. Mean age was 66.9 years, mean BMI was 29.8 kg/m2, and 35% of patients were female. Rates of malseating ranged from 0.15% to 5.8%, with a total of 53 malseated liners identified throughout all studies (1.98%). Based on THA manufacturer, malseating occurred in 48 Stryker (1.96%) and 5 Biomet Zimmer (2.14%) THAs. Mean clinical follow-up was 2.2 years (mean range, 1.3 to 6.4 years). Except one patient reporting of pain at 2 years, no revision or negative clinical implication was noted in any of the malseated liners, including normal ranged metal ions measured in four cases. A smaller acetabular component size was identified as a statistically significant risk factor for malseating in one study. Mean MINORS score was 9.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Liner malseating is a rare finding in patients undergoing THAs with dual-mobility articulations. While prelim results demonstrate no negative clinical consequences to date, existing studies are limited, refer to short-term outcomes only, and do not prospectively follow-up affected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Radiographic Accuracy of Malseated Dual-Mobility Liners Varies Based on Implant Design

BACKGROUND

Dual-mobility constructs have gained popularity to mitigate dislocations after high-risk primary and revision total hip arthroplasties. Contemporary data have indicated that malseating of modular dual-mobility liners occurs in up to 6% of cases. The purpose of this cadaveric-based radiographic study was to determine the ability to accurately determine if modular dual-mobility liners were seated.

METHODS

There were 10 hips (5 cadaveric pelvic specimens) used to implant modular dual-mobility liners of 2 designs. One had a liner that seated flush and the other had an extended rim. There were 20 constructs that were well-seated and 20 constructs were intentionally malseated. A comprehensive series of radiographs was reviewed by 2 blinded surgeons. Statistical analyses included Chi-squared testing, logistic regressions, and kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Radiographic assessment of liner malseating was not accurate with an elevated rim design with misdiagnosis in 40% (16 of 40). The flush design had diagnostic errors in 5% (2 of 40; P = .0002). Logistic regressions demonstrated a significantly higher risk of misdiagnosing a malseated liner in the elevated rim group (odds ratio 13). There were 12 of 16 misdiagnoses in the elevated rim group failing to recognize a malseated liner. Each surgeon had almost perfect agreement for intraobserver reliability for flush designs (k 0.90) and fair agreement in the elevated rim design (k 0.35).

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive series of plain radiographs can reliably detect a malseated modular dual-mobility liner with a flush rim design in 95% of cases. However, elevated rim designs are more difficult to accurately identify malseating on plain radiographs.

Is Modular Dual Mobility Superior to Standard Bearings for Reducing Dislocation Risk after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Retrospective Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) has been proven to reduce dislocation risk after total hip arthroplasty (THA). In the last decade modular DM (modDM) constructs have been introduced to allow the use of DM articulation with standard cementless acetabular shells. However, clinical evidence of modDM effectiveness is still low in primary THA and concerns about implant-related complications are increasing. This retrospective comparative multicenter study is aimed to investigate if the dislocation rate after primary THA could be reduced with modDM in comparison to standard bearing (SB).

METHODS

262 THAs were performed between 2017 and 2019, using SB (129 hips) or modDM (133) with the same cementless highly porous modular acetabular cup. Dislocations, complications and revisions were recorded and implant survival was analyzed.

RESULTS

At 2.5-year mean follow-up, dislocation occurred in 4 hips (3.1%) within the SB group while intraprosthetic dislocation in 2 hips (1.5%) within the modDM group (p = 0.44). Implant survivals with revision due to dislocation were 95.2% and 95.9% at 4-year follow-up for SB and modDM, respectively (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

modDM used in primary THA might reduce dislocation rate in comparison to SB, even in high-risk patients, however, caution is advocated due to specific intraprosthetic dislocation.

Malseating of Modular Dual Mobility Liners: High Prevalence in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components have become increasingly more popular in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncertainty remains regarding liner malseating and its consequences after 5 to 10 years, especially in patients who undergo revision THA. The objective of this study was to analyze the prevalence of malseating and implant survivorship of patients who underwent revision THA using an MDM liner.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who had a minimum 2-year follow-up and underwent revision THA using an MDM liner. Patient demographics, implant details, mortality, and all-cause revisions were recorded. Patients who had radiographic follow-up were assessed for malseating. Kaplan Meier survival was used to determine implant survivorship. We included 143 hips in 141 patients. Mean age was 70 years (35 - 93 years) and 86 patients (60.1%) were female.

RESULTS

Overall implant survival was 89.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.843 - 0.946) at a mean follow-up of 6 years (range 2 to 10) years. There were eight patients excluded from malseating assessment. Upon radiological review, 15 liners (11.1%) were malseated. Survival for all-cause revision for patients with malseated liners was 80.0% (12/15, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.99, P= 0.15) versus 91.5% in patients who had non-malseated liners (110/120, 95% CI 0.86 - 0.96). There were no intraprosthetic dislocations and 3.5% of the patients were revised due to instability. No liners were revised due to malseating, and no patients who had malseated liners were revised due to instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Using MDM components in our cohort comprised of revision THA was associated with a high prevalence of malseating and an overall survival of 89.3% at a mean follow up of 6 years. Malseating does not appear to impact implant survival at a mean follow-up of 6 years.