Dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty

Viste, Anthony; Desmarchelier, Romain; Fessy, Michel‐Henri

doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3363-4

Cited by 44 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with other rTHA studies in which a DM cup was used, the aseptic loosening rate was similar: 0% at 1.3 years [21], 13.5% at 7 years [22], and 3.9% at 8.5 years [23]. Given the differences in the type of bone defects between studies, it seems that aseptic loosening appears between 7 and 10 years (mean of 9.6 years in our study).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Sayac¹,

Néri²,

Schneider³

et al. 2020

The Journal of Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Sayac¹,

Néri²,

Schneider³

et al. 2020

The Journal of Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are many factors able to cause the failure of R-THA: these have been found to be mostly instability and aseptic loosening. It has been reported that the dislocation rate in R-THA is almost 3 times higher than primary THA [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

166 Dual Mobility for Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Antinolfi

Pace

Placella

et al. 2021

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual Mobility (DM) implants provide greater stability especially in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (R-THA) when compared to primary THA. Aim: to identify the current evidence regarding outcomes of DM in R-THA when compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants. Review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Structured electronic searches. Primary outcome measure: dislocation rate following R-THA. Secondary outcome measures: implant survival, aseptic loosening, infection rate. Studies' methodology quality assessed using MINORS criteria. All articles published from 2016 to December 2019 included. 1777 R-THAs were reported (49.9% with DM acetabular component, 50.1% with FB component). Sample size: 67-426 patients. Mean age: 57-73. Mean follow-up period: 12-60 months. Significant risk ratio of 1.08 [1.05, 1.12] (95% CI, I2 = 37%, P < 0.00001) with statistically significant difference between the two groups in favour of DM implant. Statistically significant difference in favour of DM group with respect to dislocation rate (risk ratio 0.22, 95% CI; P < 0.00001) and aseptic loosening (risk ratio 0.51, 95% CI; P < 0.05). No statistical difference between the groups on risk ratio for infection 0.94 (95% CI; P = 0.85). DM implants are beneficial in R-THA when compared to FB implants. However, one needs to balance the benefits of using DM implant considering the patient’s clinical conditions and the costs involved.

show abstract

“…12 There are numerous studies and systematic reviews evaluating the use of DM components in both primary and revision THA. [13][14][15][16][17] However, these cohorts have generally included all-cause revisions. More recent studies have looked at high-risk revision groups, with promising shortand mid-term results and dislocation rates ranging from 3% to 21%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-mobility bearings in complex revision hip arthroplasty

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is associated with an increased dislocation risk. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been used to address this issue. Such constructs offer increased range of motion and enhanced stability whilst avoiding some issues associated with fully-constrained devices. DM bearings have been used in our unit since 2013. Methods: All rTHA cases since 2013 were reviewed using the following criteria: (1) use of a DM bearing; (2) extensive soft tissue or bone loss resulting from ARMD, infection or multiple revisions, or requiring custom or megaprosthetic reconstruction; (3) minimum 2-month follow-up. Results: 52 cases were identified with a median of 2 previous operations (range 1–6) and mean follow-up of 14 (2–41) months. The Novae-Stick component was used in 50 cases, the Avantage in 2 and the Trident MDM in 1 case. 19 required acetabular reconstruction using trabecular metal and four required custom acetabular components. 19 required femoral reconstruction with a proximal or total femoral replacement. Postoperatively, 8 patients (15.4%) sustained a dislocation at a mean of 1.6 (range 1–3) months. 3 (5.8%) requiring re-revision. 1 required excision arthroplasty and 2 a constrained liner, 1 of which went on to have further instability. There were no intraprosthetic dislocations. Conclusions: Dual-mobility components are a viable option in the complex rTHA setting. Early dislocations can occur but the rate of instability is acceptable in this high-risk group.

show abstract

Dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty

Abstract: This study provided evidence of the advantages of dual mobility cups in all revision THA indications.

Cited by 44 publications

References 35 publications

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

166 Dual Mobility for Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Dual-mobility bearings in complex revision hip arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About