Literature DB >> 29305445

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

B Darrith1, P M Courtney2, C J Della Valle1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra-articular dislocation.
RESULTS: For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extra-articular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all-cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2).
CONCLUSION: Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High-quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:11-19. ©2018 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aseptic loosening; Dislocation; Dual mobility; Instability; Revision hip; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29305445     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0462.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  49 in total

1.  Incidence and risk factors of in-hospital prosthesis-related complications following total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective Nationwide Inpatient Sample database study.

Authors:  Qinfeng Yang; Jian Wang; Yichuan Xu; Yuhang Chen; Qiang Lian; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-06-27       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  CORR Insights®: Spinal Fusion Is Associated With Changes in Acetabular Orientation and Reductions in Pelvic Mobility.

Authors:  Edward Ebramzadeh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Lack of early dislocation for dual mobility vs. fixed bearing total hip arthroplasty: A multi-center analysis of comparable cohorts.

Authors:  J A Dubin; G H Westrich
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-02-04

4.  Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

Authors:  John E Farey; James Masters; Alana R Cuthbert; Pernille Iversen; Liza N van Steenbergen; Heather A Prentice; Sam Adie; Adrian Sayers; Michael R Whitehouse; Elizabeth W Paxton; Matthew L Costa; Søren Overgaard; Cecilia Rogmark; Ola Rolfson; Ian A Harris
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2030.

Authors:  Andrew M Schwartz; Kevin X Farley; George N Guild; Thomas L Bradbury
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Outcomes for cemented dual mobility cup to treat recurrent instability; A UK case series.

Authors:  Andrew Neil Wheelton; Darren Myatt; Anthony Thomas Helm
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-02-28

7.  Dual mobility THR: Resolving instability and providing near normal range of movement.

Authors:  Sanjay Agarwala; Vivek Shetty; Shounak Taywade; Mayank Vijayvargiya; Mahmoud Bhingraj
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-08-28

8.  Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Hemispherical Uncemented Dual-Mobility Cup Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes and No Dislocations at 2 years.

Authors:  Loic Schneider; Frédéric Châtain; Gilles Estour; Sonia Ramos-Pascual; Luca Nover; Nicolas Bonin
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-05-31

Review 9.  Adverse reaction to metal debris due to fretting corrosion between the acetabular components of modular dual-mobility constructs in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan M R French; Paul Bramley; Sean Scattergood; Nemandra A Sandiford
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-05-04

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

Authors:  Fu-Yuan Pai; Hsuan-Hsiao Ma; Te-Feng Arthur Chou; Tsan-Wen Huang; Kuo-Chin Huang; Shang-Wen Tsai; Cheng-Fong Chen; Wei-Ming Chen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.