Niklas Unter Ecker1, Hakan Kocaoğlu1,2, Akos Zahar3, Carl Haasper1, Thorsten Gehrke1, Mustafa Citak1. 1. N. U. Ecker, H. Kocaoğlu, C. Haasper, T. Gehrke, M. Citak, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 2. H. Kocaoğlu, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 3. A. Zahar, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Helios Klinik Berlin- Zehlendorf, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups have been shown to reduce the dislocation risk after THA. Although dual-mobility cups can be a useful strategy to mitigate against recurrent dislocation after revision surgery, few clinical studies have focused on the results of complex revision THAs with extensive bone and soft-tissue loss or in patients who have undergone more than one previous surgical procedure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the survival free from revision for dislocation of dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THAs? (2) What is the survival free from any dislocation? METHODS: Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, 327 patients underwent a complex revision THA that included an acetabular revision, defined as preexisting massive bone loss in the acetabulum (at least Paprosky Type 2B) and/or proximal femur (at least Paprosky Type 3), substantial gluteal soft-tissue involvement, at least two previous surgical procedures or a one-stage septic revision, or history of dislocation. All 327 complex revision patients received a dual-mobility cup. Of those, 34% (111) were lost to follow-up before 5 years and were not known to have reached a study endpoint (revision for dislocation, and any dislocation) before then, leaving 216 patients for analysis. For patients with bilateral hip surgeries only the first operated hip was included for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 69 months (60 to 110). The primary endpoint was dislocation or re-revision for dislocation. Fifty-six percent (120 of 216) of the patients were women and 44% (96 of 216) were men. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 9 years. The patients underwent a median of four surgical procedures (1 to 4) before the index procedure (the revision evaluated in this study). A survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; any dislocation or revision for dislocation was determined as the endpoint. RESULTS: The dislocation-free survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval 92 to 98) at 5 years and 82% (95% CI 72 to 89) at 9 years. The overall dislocation rate was 11% (24 of 216 patients) at the final follow-up interval. Survival free of revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) at 5 years and 85% (95% CI 75 to 92) at 9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THA in this series had a higher rate of dislocation and revision than expected, based on earlier studies of dislocations of these components. Although we believe dual-mobility cups are still the first choice of implant if the patient has instability, these cups should be used cautiously if severe bone loss or soft-tissue involvement is present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups have been shown to reduce the dislocation risk after THA. Although dual-mobility cups can be a useful strategy to mitigate against recurrent dislocation after revision surgery, few clinical studies have focused on the results of complex revision THAs with extensive bone and soft-tissue loss or in patients who have undergone more than one previous surgical procedure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the survival free from revision for dislocation of dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THAs? (2) What is the survival free from any dislocation? METHODS: Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, 327 patients underwent a complex revision THA that included an acetabular revision, defined as preexisting massive bone loss in the acetabulum (at least Paprosky Type 2B) and/or proximal femur (at least Paprosky Type 3), substantial gluteal soft-tissue involvement, at least two previous surgical procedures or a one-stage septic revision, or history of dislocation. All 327 complex revision patients received a dual-mobility cup. Of those, 34% (111) were lost to follow-up before 5 years and were not known to have reached a study endpoint (revision for dislocation, and any dislocation) before then, leaving 216 patients for analysis. For patients with bilateral hip surgeries only the first operated hip was included for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 69 months (60 to 110). The primary endpoint was dislocation or re-revision for dislocation. Fifty-six percent (120 of 216) of the patients were women and 44% (96 of 216) were men. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 9 years. The patients underwent a median of four surgical procedures (1 to 4) before the index procedure (the revision evaluated in this study). A survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; any dislocation or revision for dislocation was determined as the endpoint. RESULTS: The dislocation-free survival rates were 96% (95% confidence interval 92 to 98) at 5 years and 82% (95% CI 72 to 89) at 9 years. The overall dislocation rate was 11% (24 of 216 patients) at the final follow-up interval. Survival free of revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) at 5 years and 85% (95% CI 75 to 92) at 9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-mobility cups used in complex revision THA in this series had a higher rate of dislocation and revision than expected, based on earlier studies of dislocations of these components. Although we believe dual-mobility cups are still the first choice of implant if the patient has instability, these cups should be used cautiously if severe bone loss or soft-tissue involvement is present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Authors: Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; William L Griffin; Susan M Odum; John L Masonis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Arnaud Dubory; Damien Potage; François Roubineau; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ashley W Blom; Mark Rogers; Adrian H Taylor; Giles Pattison; Sarah Whitehouse; Gordon C Bannister Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 1.891