BACKGROUND: Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P = .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P = .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P = .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P = .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P = .059). CONCLUSION: Both CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.
BACKGROUND: Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P = .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P = .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P = .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P = .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P = .059). CONCLUSION: Both CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.
Authors: Philip C Noble; Salim K Durrani; Molly M Usrey; Kenneth B Mathis; Nikolaos V Bardakos Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Rasmus Kreipke; Cecilia Rogmark; Alma B Pedersen; Johan Kärrholm; Geir Hallan; Leif Ivar Havelin; Keijo Mäkelä; Søren Overgaard Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael D Hellman; David J Kaufman; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky; Brett R Levine; Craig J Della Valle Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Craig J Della Valle; Dennis Chang; Scott Sporer; Richard A Berger; Aaron G Rosenberg; Wayne G Paprosky Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: S Mehdi Jafari; Catelyn Coyle; S M Javad Mortazavi; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Antoine Combes; Henri Migaud; Julien Girard; Alain Duhamel; Michel Henri Fessy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.176