Causes for Revision of Dual-mobility and Standard Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty : Matched Case-control Study Based on a Prospective Multicenter Study of Two Thousand and Forty Four Implants

Overview

Journal Int Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2015 Dec 15

PMID 26660728

Citations 16

Authors

Jean-Louis Prudhon

Romain Desmarchelier

Moussa Hamadouche

Christian Delaunay

Regis Verdier

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The causes for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are various and quite well known. The developing use of dual-mobility THA (DM-THA) seems a relevant option to decrease the risk of instability. Due to lack of long-term follow-up, this innovative retentive concept is suspected to increase the risk of polyethylene (PE) wear. the aim of the study was to analyse the causes for DM-THA revision and assess whether or not its occurrence is different from that of fixed-standard (FS) THA , particularly for aseptic loosening or wear and/or osteolysis.

Materials And Methods: The SoFCOT group conducted an observational prospective multicentre study from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. Inclusion criteria comprised an exhaustive collection of 2044 first-revision THAs with 251 DM-THAs and 1793 FS-THAs. After excluding complications linked to patient factors (infection and periprosthetic fractures), we performed a matched case-control study (matching ratio 1:1) comparing two groups of 133 THAs.

Results: Revisions for aseptic loosening or osteolysis/wear were as frequent in DM-THA (58.7 %) as in FS-THA (57.1 %) (p 0.32); 7.5 % of DM-THA were revised for dislocation versus 19.5 % of FS-THA (p 0.007).

Discussion: Revision for osteolysis/wear and aseptic loosening were as frequent in DM-THA as in FS-THA; revision for dislocation was less frequent in DM-THA. This confirms the efficiency of the DM concept regarding the risk of dislocation. Causes for revision were different between groups, and revisions for dislocation were less frequent in DM-THA. Only prospective comparative studies could provide reliable information that may support broader use of the DM concept.

Citing Articles

Dislocation and survival rate of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with high risk of instability.

Ameztoy Gallego J, Cruz Pardos A, Gomez Luque J, Cuadrado Rubio L, Fernandez Fernandez R Int Orthop. 2023; 47(7):1757-1764.

PMID: 37085676 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-023-05816-8.

Does total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach using dual mobility increase leg length discrepancy compared with single mobility?.

Ishii S, Homma Y, Baba T, Jinnai Y, Zhuang X, Tanabe H Arthroplasty. 2022; 3(1):2.

PMID: 35236437 PMC: 8796478. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-020-00060-6.

Dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: current concepts.

Cuthbert R, Wong J, Mitchell P, Kumar Jaiswal P EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4(11):640-646.

PMID: 31754471 PMC: 6851525. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180089.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with a Kerboull plate: comparative outcomes using standard versus dual mobility cups.

Assi C, Caton J, Fawaz W, Samaha C, Yammine K Int Orthop. 2018; 43(10):2245-2251.

PMID: 30370452 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4209-z.

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

Romagnoli M, Grassi A, Costa G, Lazaro L, Presti M, Zaffagnini S Int Orthop. 2018; 43(5):1071-1082.

PMID: 30032356 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4062-0.

References

LeClercq S, Benoit J, de Rosa J, Tallier E, Leteurtre C, Girardin P . Evora® chromium-cobalt dual mobility socket: results at a minimum 10 years' follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(8):923-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.07.017. View

Grazioli A, Ek E, Rudiger H . Biomechanical concept and clinical outcome of dual mobility cups. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(12):2411-8. PMC: 3508052. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1678-3. View

Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Liu S, Zhang Q, Zhang Y . Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2015; 89(2):82-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.10.008. View

Lachiewicz P, Watters T . The use of dual-mobility components in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012; 20(8):481-6. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-08-481. View

Hamadouche M, Arnould H, Bouxin B . Is a cementless dual mobility socket in primary THA a reasonable option?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(11):3048-53. PMC: 3462877. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2395-3. View

Epinette J . Clinical outcomes, survivorship and adverse events with mobile-bearings versus fixed-bearings in hip arthroplasty-a prospective comparative cohort study of 143 ADM versus 130 trident cups at 2 to 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 30(2):241-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.022. View

Devane P, Horne J, Martin K, Coldham G, Krause B . Three-dimensional polyethylene wear of a press-fit titanium prosthesis. Factors influencing generation of polyethylene debris. J Arthroplasty. 1997; 12(3):256-66. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(97)90021-8. View

Caton J, Prudhon J, Ferreira A, Aslanian T, Verdier R . A comparative and retrospective study of three hundred and twenty primary Charnley type hip replacements with a minimum follow up of ten years to assess whether a dual mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(6):1125-9. PMC: 4037498. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2313-2. View

Jang B, Walsh N, Bruce W . Verification of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using a surgeon's database. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2013; 21(3):347-50. DOI: 10.1177/230949901302100317. View

10.

Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F . Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 471(3):965-70. PMC: 3563829. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2639-2. View

11.

Aram P, Kadirkamanathan V, Wilkinson J . Use of kernel-based Bayesian models to predict late osteolysis after hip replacement. J R Soc Interface. 2013; 10(88):20130678. PMC: 3785840. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0678. View

12.

Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C . The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop. 2010; 35(2):225-30. PMC: 3032118. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1156-8. View

13.

Lecuire F, Benareau I, Rubini J, Basso M . [Intra-prosthetic dislocation of the Bousquet dual mobility socket]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004; 90(3):249-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0035-1040(04)70101-4. View

14.

Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A . What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(12):3863-9. PMC: 3825891. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2935-5. View

15.

Prudhon J, Ferreira A, Verdier R . Dual mobility cup: dislocation rate and survivorship at ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop. 2013; 37(12):2345-50. PMC: 3843189. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2067-2. View

16.

Epinette J, Beracassat R, Tracol P, Pagazani G, Vandenbussche E . Are modern dual mobility cups a valuable option in reducing instability after primary hip arthroplasty, even in younger patients?. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1323-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.011. View

17.

Bozic K, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Vail T, Berry D . The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(1):128-33. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00155. View

18.

Plummer D, Haughom B, Della Valle C . Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013; 45(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.08.004. View

19.

Wu C, Qu X, Liu F, Li H, Mao Y, Zhu Z . Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4):e95300. PMC: 3991645. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095300. View

20.

Maisongrosse P, Lepage B, Cavaignac E, Pailhe R, Reina N, Chiron P . Obesity is no longer a risk factor for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with a double-mobility cup. Int Orthop. 2014; 39(7):1251-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2612-7. View