E Simian1, R Chatellard1, J Druon1, J Berhouet1, P Rosset2. 1. Services d'orthopédie 1 et 2, CHU de Tours, avenue de la République, 37044 Tours cedex 09, France; Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, 37020 Tours, France. 2. Services d'orthopédie 1 et 2, CHU de Tours, avenue de la République, 37044 Tours cedex 09, France; Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, 37020 Tours, France. Electronic address: philippe.rosset@univ-tours.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dislocation is a common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly when performed as revision surgery. Dual mobility cups (DMCs) minimize the risk of instability when implanted during primary THA. However, their usefulness and survival in revision THA remain unclear. We therefore conducted a retrospective study to assess DMC stability and survival at a minimal follow-up period of 5years after revision THA. HYPOTHESIS: The dislocation rate associated with DMCs for revision THA is similar to that seen after primary THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cup exchange with implantation of a DMC was performed in 71 patients (74 hips) between 2000 and 2007, for the following reasons: recurrent dislocation (n=22), aseptic loosening (n=38), and infection (n=14). The DMCs were cemented in 47 cases and cementless in 27 cases. The clinical variables (Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score and Harris Hip Score) and radiological findings were collected retrospectively from the medical records and compared with those obtained at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: Of the 74 cases, 2 were lost to follow-up. At last follow-up, the mean Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score was 15.2 (11-18) and the mean Harris Hip Score was 80.4 (51-98). Of the 8 failures, 2 (2/72, 2.7%) were related to mechanical factors (1 case each of aseptic loosening and dislocation) and 6 were changed because of infection (recurrent infection, n=4). Mechanical failure was not linked to a specific reason for revision THA. A radiolucent line was visible in 4 cases but this finding was not associated with clinical manifestations. When failure was defined as cup revision for any non-infectious complication, 5-year implant survival was 99% (95% confidence interval, 93-100%). DISCUSSION: Use of a DMC in revision THA was associated with a slightly higher dislocation rate (1/72, 1.4%) than in primary THA, whereas 5-year survival was comparable. Cemented DMCs were not associated with a greater risk of loosening. CONCLUSION: DMCs are useful to decrease the risk of dislocation in revision THA performed for any reason. The low rate of loosening indicates that DMCs do not result in high stresses at the bone-implant interface. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
BACKGROUND: Dislocation is a common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly when performed as revision surgery. Dual mobility cups (DMCs) minimize the risk of instability when implanted during primary THA. However, their usefulness and survival in revision THA remain unclear. We therefore conducted a retrospective study to assess DMC stability and survival at a minimal follow-up period of 5years after revision THA. HYPOTHESIS: The dislocation rate associated with DMCs for revision THA is similar to that seen after primary THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cup exchange with implantation of a DMC was performed in 71 patients (74 hips) between 2000 and 2007, for the following reasons: recurrent dislocation (n=22), aseptic loosening (n=38), and infection (n=14). The DMCs were cemented in 47 cases and cementless in 27 cases. The clinical variables (Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score and Harris Hip Score) and radiological findings were collected retrospectively from the medical records and compared with those obtained at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: Of the 74 cases, 2 were lost to follow-up. At last follow-up, the mean Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score was 15.2 (11-18) and the mean Harris Hip Score was 80.4 (51-98). Of the 8 failures, 2 (2/72, 2.7%) were related to mechanical factors (1 case each of aseptic loosening and dislocation) and 6 were changed because of infection (recurrent infection, n=4). Mechanical failure was not linked to a specific reason for revision THA. A radiolucent line was visible in 4 cases but this finding was not associated with clinical manifestations. When failure was defined as cup revision for any non-infectious complication, 5-year implant survival was 99% (95% confidence interval, 93-100%). DISCUSSION: Use of a DMC in revision THA was associated with a slightly higher dislocation rate (1/72, 1.4%) than in primary THA, whereas 5-year survival was comparable. Cemented DMCs were not associated with a greater risk of loosening. CONCLUSION:DMCs are useful to decrease the risk of dislocation in revision THA performed for any reason. The low rate of loosening indicates that DMCs do not result in high stresses at the bone-implant interface. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
Authors: Nicolas de l'Escalopier; Valérie Dumaine; Guillaume Auberger; Antoine Babinet; Jean-Pierre Courpied; Philippe Anract; Moussa Hamadouche Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Molly A Hartzler; Matthew P Abdel; Peter K Sculco; Michael J Taunton; Mark W Pagnano; Arlen D Hanssen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Brian P Chalmers; Graham D Pallante; Michael J Taunton; Rafael J Sierra; Robert T Trousdale Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.176