A Perrin1,2,3, M Saab4,5, S Putman4,5, K Benad4,5, E Drumez6, C Chantelot4,5. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, CHRU de Lille, Place de Verdun, 59037, Lille Cedex, France. alexis.perrin66@gmail.com. 2. Lille Nord University, 59000, Lille, France. alexis.perrin66@gmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Group of the Catholic Institute of Lille, Saint-Philibert Hospital, Rue du Grand But, 59160, Lomme, France. alexis.perrin66@gmail.com. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, CHRU de Lille, Place de Verdun, 59037, Lille Cedex, France. 5. Lille Nord University, 59000, Lille, France. 6. Public Health Department: Epidemiology and Quality of Care, Biostatistics Unit, EA 2694, F-59000, Lille, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The SOFCOT symposium (2005) on periprosthetic fractures of the femur (PFFs) highlighted a high rate of dislocation (15.6% at 6 months) after change of prosthesis. So far, no study has ever proved the benefit of dual-mobility articulation during PFFs revisions. We conducted a comparative study on two prospective cohorts in order to (1) assess the influence of systematic acetabular revision in favor of a double mobility on dislocation rate (2) and in order to evaluate the rate of morbidity associated with this extra surgical procedure. HYPOTHESIS: A systematic replacement of the cup in favor of a dual-mobility articulation enables to reduce the dislocation rate in PFFs revisions without increasing morbidity. METHODOLOGY: We compared two prospective multicenter cohorts over a year (2005 and 2015) using the same methodology. Any fracture around hip prosthesis which occurred 3 months at least after surgery was included. Data collection was clinical and radiological on preoperative, intraoperative and 6 months after surgery. The 2015 "bipolar" group (n = 24) included patients who had a bipolar revision (both femoral and dual-mobility articulation). The 2005 "unipolar" group (n = 25) included patients who had only a femoral implant revision. Patients were comparable by age (p = 0.36), sex (p = 0.91), ASA score (p = 0.36), history of prosthetic revision (p = 1.00), Katz score (p = 0.50) and the type of fracture according to the Vancouver classification (p = 0.55). RESULTS: There was a 4% rate of dislocation in the "bipolar group" while there was 21% rate of dislocation in the "unipolar group" (8% of recurrent dislocation) (p = 0.19). The rate of all-cause complications 6 months after surgery was not significantly different (p = 0.07): 12.5% in the 2015 "bipolar" cohort (one dislocation, one non-symptomatic cup migration and one pseudarthrosis of the major trochanter) versus 35% in the "unipolar" cohort (5 dislocations, 1 major trochanter fracture and 1 femur pseudarthrosis, 1 secondary displacement associated with a superficial infection). The surgical revision after 6 months was not significantly different (1/23 or 4% vs. 4/25 or 16%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: We confirm the low rate of dislocations after fitting a dual-mobility cup in case of revision of the femoral side in case of periprosthetic femoral fracture, as well as the need for additional cases to be carried out upon further studies to significantly confirm the interest of preventing instability after femoral revision.
INTRODUCTION: The SOFCOT symposium (2005) on periprosthetic fractures of the femur (PFFs) highlighted a high rate of dislocation (15.6% at 6 months) after change of prosthesis. So far, no study has ever proved the benefit of dual-mobility articulation during PFFs revisions. We conducted a comparative study on two prospective cohorts in order to (1) assess the influence of systematic acetabular revision in favor of a double mobility on dislocation rate (2) and in order to evaluate the rate of morbidity associated with this extra surgical procedure. HYPOTHESIS: A systematic replacement of the cup in favor of a dual-mobility articulation enables to reduce the dislocation rate in PFFs revisions without increasing morbidity. METHODOLOGY: We compared two prospective multicenter cohorts over a year (2005 and 2015) using the same methodology. Any fracture around hip prosthesis which occurred 3 months at least after surgery was included. Data collection was clinical and radiological on preoperative, intraoperative and 6 months after surgery. The 2015 "bipolar" group (n = 24) included patients who had a bipolar revision (both femoral and dual-mobility articulation). The 2005 "unipolar" group (n = 25) included patients who had only a femoral implant revision. Patients were comparable by age (p = 0.36), sex (p = 0.91), ASA score (p = 0.36), history of prosthetic revision (p = 1.00), Katz score (p = 0.50) and the type of fracture according to the Vancouver classification (p = 0.55). RESULTS: There was a 4% rate of dislocation in the "bipolar group" while there was 21% rate of dislocation in the "unipolar group" (8% of recurrent dislocation) (p = 0.19). The rate of all-cause complications 6 months after surgery was not significantly different (p = 0.07): 12.5% in the 2015 "bipolar" cohort (one dislocation, one non-symptomatic cup migration and one pseudarthrosis of the major trochanter) versus 35% in the "unipolar" cohort (5 dislocations, 1 major trochanter fracture and 1 femur pseudarthrosis, 1 secondary displacement associated with a superficial infection). The surgical revision after 6 months was not significantly different (1/23 or 4% vs. 4/25 or 16%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: We confirm the low rate of dislocations after fitting a dual-mobility cup in case of revision of the femoral side in case of periprosthetic femoral fracture, as well as the need for additional cases to be carried out upon further studies to significantly confirm the interest of preventing instability after femoral revision.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acetabular revision; Dislocation; Dislocation of total hip arthroplasty; Dual mobility articulation; Periprosthetic femoral fractures
Authors: M Soenen; C Lautridou; B Lebel; C Hulet; J Brilhault; H Migaud; O May; P Laffargue; P Burdin Journal: Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot Date: 2006-09
Authors: F S Chen; P E Di Cesare; A A Kale; J F Lee; V H Frankel; S A Stuchin; J D Zuckerman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Matteo Romagnoli; Alberto Grassi; Giuseppe Gianluca Costa; Lionel E Lazaro; Mirco Lo Presti; Stefano Zaffagnini Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 3.075