Julien Wegrzyn1, Matthieu Malatray2, Vincent Pibarot2, Gaetano Anania3, Jacques Béjui-Hugues3. 1. J. Wegrzyn, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital - CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. M. Malatray, V. Pibarot, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. 3. G. Anania, J. Béjui-Hugues, Instituto Chirurgico Ortopedico Traumatologico "Marco Pasquali", Latina LT, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraprosthetic dislocation is a specific complication of dual mobility cups, although it occurs less frequently with the latest generations of implants. Intraprosthetic dislocation is related to long-term polyethylene wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area, leading to a snap-out of the femoral head. With the increased use of dual mobility cups, even in younger and active patients, the management of intraprosthetic dislocation should be defined according to its type. However, no previous studies, except for case reports, have described the strategy to manage long-term wear-related intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly when a dual mobility cup is not loose. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of intraprosthetic dislocation in this patient population and the macroscopic findings at the time of surgical revision and (2) evaluate whether isolated mobile component exchange could be an option to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. METHODS: From January 1991 to December 2009, a continuous series of 5274 THAs with dual mobility cups (4546 patients; 2773 women; mean [range] age 58 years [22-87]; bilateral THA = 728) were prospectively enrolled in our institutional total joint registry. A cementless, hemispherical dual mobility cup was systematically implanted, regardless of the patient's age or indication for THA. At the latest follow-up examination, the registry was queried to isolate each occurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation, which was retrospectively analyzed regarding the patient's demographics, indication for THA, radiographs, intraoperative findings (polyethylene wear and lesion patterns on the mobile component, periarticular metallosis, and implant damage because of intraprosthetic impingement of the femoral neck), management of intraprosthetic dislocation (isolated exchange of the mobile component or revision of the dual mobility cup), and outcome. RESULTS: At a mean (range) follow-up duration of 14 years (3-26), 3% of intraprosthetic dislocations (169 of 5274) were reported, with a mean (range) time from THA of 18 years (13-22). Intraprosthetic dislocation occurred predominantly in younger men (mean [range] age at THA, 42 years [22-64] versus 61 years [46-87]; p < 0.001, and sex ratio (male to female, 1:32 [96 male and 73 female] versus 0.62 [1677 male and 2700 female]; p < 0.001) in patients with intraprosthetic dislocation and those without, respectively, but was not influenced by the indication for THA (105 patients with intraprosthetic dislocation who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 64 with other diagnoses versus 3146 patients without who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 1959 for other diagnoses (p = 0.9)). In all patients with intraprosthetic dislocation, a macroscopic analysis of the explanted mobile component revealed circumferential polyethylene wear and damage to the chamfer and retentive area, with subsequent loss of retaining power for the femoral head. Nine percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (16 of 169 patients with intraprosthetic dislocations) were associated with aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup and were managed with acetabular revision without recurrence at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 7.5 years (5-11). Ninety-one percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (153 of 169) were pure, related to wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area without aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup, and managed with isolated mobile component exchange. Intraprosthetic dislocation recurred in 6% (nine of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up interval of 3 years (2-4.5). Additionally, severe premature polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup occurred in 12% of patients (19 of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 1.5 years (0.5-3). CONCLUSIONS: A failure rate of 18% (28 of 153 patients undergoing isolated mobile component exchange) was reported within 5 years after isolated mobile component exchange to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. The two modes of failure were early recurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation or severe premature metallosis-related polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup. Acetabular revision with synovectomy should remain the standard procedure to manage intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly if periarticular metallosis is present. The exception is intraprosthetic dislocation occurring in elderly or frail patients, for whom a conventional acetabular revision procedure would be associated with an unjustified surgical or anesthetic risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.
BACKGROUND: Intraprosthetic dislocation is a specific complication of dual mobility cups, although it occurs less frequently with the latest generations of implants. Intraprosthetic dislocation is related to long-term polyethylene wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area, leading to a snap-out of the femoral head. With the increased use of dual mobility cups, even in younger and active patients, the management of intraprosthetic dislocation should be defined according to its type. However, no previous studies, except for case reports, have described the strategy to manage long-term wear-related intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly when a dual mobility cup is not loose. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of intraprosthetic dislocation in this patient population and the macroscopic findings at the time of surgical revision and (2) evaluate whether isolated mobile component exchange could be an option to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. METHODS: From January 1991 to December 2009, a continuous series of 5274 THAs with dual mobility cups (4546 patients; 2773 women; mean [range] age 58 years [22-87]; bilateral THA = 728) were prospectively enrolled in our institutional total joint registry. A cementless, hemispherical dual mobility cup was systematically implanted, regardless of the patient's age or indication for THA. At the latest follow-up examination, the registry was queried to isolate each occurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation, which was retrospectively analyzed regarding the patient's demographics, indication for THA, radiographs, intraoperative findings (polyethylene wear and lesion patterns on the mobile component, periarticular metallosis, and implant damage because of intraprosthetic impingement of the femoral neck), management of intraprosthetic dislocation (isolated exchange of the mobile component or revision of the dual mobility cup), and outcome. RESULTS: At a mean (range) follow-up duration of 14 years (3-26), 3% of intraprosthetic dislocations (169 of 5274) were reported, with a mean (range) time from THA of 18 years (13-22). Intraprosthetic dislocation occurred predominantly in younger men (mean [range] age at THA, 42 years [22-64] versus 61 years [46-87]; p < 0.001, and sex ratio (male to female, 1:32 [96 male and 73 female] versus 0.62 [1677 male and 2700 female]; p < 0.001) in patients with intraprosthetic dislocation and those without, respectively, but was not influenced by the indication for THA (105 patients with intraprosthetic dislocation who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 64 with other diagnoses versus 3146 patients without who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 1959 for other diagnoses (p = 0.9)). In all patients with intraprosthetic dislocation, a macroscopic analysis of the explanted mobile component revealed circumferential polyethylene wear and damage to the chamfer and retentive area, with subsequent loss of retaining power for the femoral head. Nine percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (16 of 169 patients with intraprosthetic dislocations) were associated with aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup and were managed with acetabular revision without recurrence at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 7.5 years (5-11). Ninety-one percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (153 of 169) were pure, related to wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area without aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup, and managed with isolated mobile component exchange. Intraprosthetic dislocation recurred in 6% (nine of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up interval of 3 years (2-4.5). Additionally, severe premature polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup occurred in 12% of patients (19 of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 1.5 years (0.5-3). CONCLUSIONS: A failure rate of 18% (28 of 153 patients undergoing isolated mobile component exchange) was reported within 5 years after isolated mobile component exchange to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. The two modes of failure were early recurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation or severe premature metallosis-related polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup. Acetabular revision with synovectomy should remain the standard procedure to manage intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly if periarticular metallosis is present. The exception is intraprosthetic dislocation occurring in elderly or frail patients, for whom a conventional acetabular revision procedure would be associated with an unjustified surgical or anesthetic risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.