R Philippot1, P Adam, F Farizon, M H Fessy, G Bousquet. 1. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Pavilion 1-3, Hôpital Bellevue, boulevard Pasteur, 42055 Saint-Etienne Cedex 2.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We report a retrospective series of 106 total hip prosthesis with ten years follow-up. The purpose of this study was to analyze survival of cementless dual mobility sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The series included 90 consecutive patients with 106 first-intention total hip prosthesis, all with cementless dual mobility sockets. All prosthesis (Novae-1 socket and Profil-1 stem, Serf) were implanted within a 6-month period. The stainless steal socket was coated with alumina and had two short anchorage studs and a superior mooring screw and a polyethylene retentive liner. The stem had a 22.2 mm chromium cobalt head. The main indication for arthroplasty was degenerative joint disease. Mean age at implantation was 56 years (range 23-87). All patients were seen for physical examination and x-rays every two or three years. We noted cup survival at ten years (actuarial method), defining surgical revision for cup replacement due to an aseptic cause as the endpoint. RESULTS: Twelve patients died during the 10-year follow-up and one was lost to follow-up. The Postel-Merle d'Aubligné score improved from 7.1 preoperatively to 15.8 at ten years. There were two isolated acetabular loosenings, two intra-prosthetic dislocations due to advanced wear of the polyethylene insert. The overall survival rate of the socket was 94.6% at ten years. There were no episodes of prosthetic instability in this series. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates the good ten-year survival of the dual mobility socket, comparable to that of conventional prostheses. The absence of any case of prosthetic instability in this series confirms the good short-term and long-term stability of the dual mobility socket. Intraprosthetic dislocation, due to loss of the polyethylene retaining ring is the main limitation of this method. The incidence was however low (2% at ten years) and treatment was not a problem. We recommend using the dual-mobility socket as the first-intention implant for patients with a high risk of post-operative instability, but also recommend it for all patients aged over 70 years since instability is the leading cause of surgical revision after this age.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We report a retrospective series of 106 total hip prosthesis with ten years follow-up. The purpose of this study was to analyze survival of cementless dual mobility sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The series included 90 consecutive patients with 106 first-intention total hip prosthesis, all with cementless dual mobility sockets. All prosthesis (Novae-1 socket and Profil-1 stem, Serf) were implanted within a 6-month period. The stainless steal socket was coated with alumina and had two short anchorage studs and a superior mooring screw and a polyethylene retentive liner. The stem had a 22.2 mm chromium cobalt head. The main indication for arthroplasty was degenerative joint disease. Mean age at implantation was 56 years (range 23-87). All patients were seen for physical examination and x-rays every two or three years. We noted cup survival at ten years (actuarial method), defining surgical revision for cup replacement due to an aseptic cause as the endpoint. RESULTS: Twelve patients died during the 10-year follow-up and one was lost to follow-up. The Postel-Merle d'Aubligné score improved from 7.1 preoperatively to 15.8 at ten years. There were two isolated acetabular loosenings, two intra-prosthetic dislocations due to advanced wear of the polyethylene insert. The overall survival rate of the socket was 94.6% at ten years. There were no episodes of prosthetic instability in this series. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates the good ten-year survival of the dual mobility socket, comparable to that of conventional prostheses. The absence of any case of prosthetic instability in this series confirms the good short-term and long-term stability of the dual mobility socket. Intraprosthetic dislocation, due to loss of the polyethylene retaining ring is the main limitation of this method. The incidence was however low (2% at ten years) and treatment was not a problem. We recommend using the dual-mobility socket as the first-intention implant for patients with a high risk of post-operative instability, but also recommend it for all patients aged over 70 years since instability is the leading cause of surgical revision after this age.
Authors: Remi Philippot; Jean Philippe Camilleri; Bertrand Boyer; Philippe Adam; Frederic Farizon Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Anna Di Laura; Harry S Hothi; Johann Henckel; Arianna Cerquiglini; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Young-Min Kwon; John A Skinner; Alister J Hart Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-06-04 Impact factor: 3.075