» Articles » PMID: 29079169

Utilizing Dual Mobility Components for First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Instability

Overview
Journal J Arthroplasty
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2017 Oct 29
PMID 29079169
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant clinical problem. Few studies have focused on the use of dual mobility (DM) components in the setting of first-time revision for instability following THA. Here, we investigate patient outcomes following first-time revision THA with DM components for a diagnosis of instability.

Methods: Institution-wide revision THAs using DM components performed between 2010 and 2013 were identified. Chart review identified 40 patients with average 3-year follow-up who had undergone first-time revision for instability, defined as instability after primary THA. Etiology of instability was classified by Wera type. Patient demographics, medical co-morbidities, re-dislocations, and re-revisions were recorded. Component position and leg-length discrepancy were measured on pre-operative and post-operative radiographs when available. Utilizing Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test, we analyzed differences between those who endured recurrent dislocation and those who did not.

Results: Recurrent dislocation occurred in 2 patients (5%). Both patients underwent re-revision for recurrent instability and carried diagnoses of instability of unresolved etiology. Two patients underwent re-revision for reasons unrelated to the DM construct. All-cause re-revision rate at final follow-up was therefore 10% (4 patients). No medical, demographic, or radiographic factors were significantly associated with risk of recurrent instability (P > .05).

Conclusion: The use of DM components for first-time revision THA for a diagnosis of instability carried a re-dislocation rate of 5% and an all-cause re-revision rate of 10% at average 3-year follow-up. Instability of unresolved etiology was associated with re-dislocation following revision surgery.

Citing Articles

A comparison of dislocation risk between dual mobility and traditional constructs used in proximal femoral replacement.

Zavras A, Vucicevic R, Fice M, Yu A, Khan Z, Dandu N J Orthop. 2024; 59:36-40.

PMID: 39351270 PMC: 11439544. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.07.014.


Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.

Zgouridou A, Kenanidis E, Potoupnis M, Tsiridis E Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023; 34(2):1219-1251.

PMID: 37768398 PMC: 10858160. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03691-y.


Femoral Head and Liner Exchange in Patients with Atraumatic Dislocation. Results of a Retrospective Study with 6 Years Follow-Up.

Hanslmeier M, Maier M, Feisst M, Beckmann N Medicina (Kaunas). 2021; 57(11).

PMID: 34833405 PMC: 8617725. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57111188.


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

Pai F, Ma H, Chou T, Huang T, Huang K, Tsai S BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1):541.

PMID: 34126990 PMC: 8204435. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.


Dual-Mobility Cup Total Hip Arthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures: A Retrospective Study With a Median Follow-Up of 5 Years.

Zhang Z, Xu G, Cao L, Sun W, Zeng X, Xiong N Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2021; 12:21514593211013244.

PMID: 34017615 PMC: 8114288. DOI: 10.1177/21514593211013244.