Instability After All-Cause Acetabular-Only Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Remains a Clinical Problem

Stevenson, Kimberly L.; Fryhofer, George W.; Hasenauer, Mark D.; Lee, Gwo Chin

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.011

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings, consistent with other retrospective, comparative studies on revision THA [6,18,48]. Not all studies have produced similar results, and dual-mobility constructs have shown some benefit [10].…”

Section: Re-revision Surgery For All Aseptic Causessupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Given that ours was a registry study, we were only able to compare dislocations that resulted in revision and did not include dislocations managed nonoperatively. There has been some benefit shown for dualmobility constructs in reducing prosthesis dislocation that was not treated with re-revision surgery [10], but this has not been performed in all studies evaluating first-revision THA [6,48] or primary THA [11,26,42].…”

Section: Re-revision Surgery For Prosthesis Dislocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Hoskins

Rainbird

Dyer

et al. 2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings ($ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dualmobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. Questions/purposes We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

show abstract

Section: Re-revision Surgery For All Aseptic Causessupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Re-revision Surgery For Prosthesis Dislocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Hoskins

Rainbird

Dyer

et al. 2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… DM, dual mobility; Y, years; SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; N/A, not applicable. * Stevenson et al 35 did not break down mean age, BMI or Sex for DM or large head. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-mobility constructs versus large femoral head bearings in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings. Methods: A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate. Results: 9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36–1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14–0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1–1.20; p = 0.26). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings.

show abstract

“…When compared to a large head diameter 40 mm on a fixed liner DM articulation was found superior in reducing postoperative dislocation, re-revision, and all causes for re-operation [ 2 ]. The reported incidence of dislocation in primary THA ranges from 0.4% to 5.8% [ 2 , 16 , 17 ]; while in revision higher incidences of postoperative instability from 14 to 20% were reported [ 18 ]. Philippot et al studied 438 hips employing DM cups and reported excellent survivorship (96%) with no early or late instability after 15 years of follow-up [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cementless augmented versus cemented Dual Mobility cups: medium-term outcome of case series with a control group

Ebied

Badr

et al. 2023

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Post-operative dislocation and reconstruction of acetabular defects are two challenging topics in revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (rTHA). Cemented Dual Mobility (DM) cups on top of Kerboull Cross and bone graft have been successfully employed to overcome these challenges. The cementless augmented DM cups were recently introduced. In this study medium term results of the augmented cementless DM Coptos cups are reported and compared to the established technique of cemented DM cups and Kerboull plate. Material and methods This is a retrospective analysis of data collected on patients who received rTHA using DM cups in the period between June 2015 and September 2020. Two groups of patients were identified. The first group received cementless augmented DM-cups (NOVAE® Coptos TH–SERF) (Coptos TH cup group). The second comparable group who had Kerboull ring (KE ring group) and cemented DM cups (NOVAE® STICK). Demographic data, surgical technique, functional and radiological outcome as well as complications during the follow-up visits are reported. Results Forty-two patients with a mean age at the time of revision 48.8 ± 13.6 years. 29 patients received Coptos TH DM-cup, while 13 patients had Bone Graft (BG), KE ring and cemented DM cups for acetabular reconstruction. Acetabular defects were Paprosky types IIB and IIC in 31 patients and IIIA and B in 11 patients. The follow-up was 52.8 ± 21 months (mean ± STD); and the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) at last visit was 91 ± 5. Good stability of all cups was reported. Full integration of the impaction graft was observed in 94% of the Coptos and 92% of the KE groups. One of the Coptos cups was readjusted and one case of single dislocation was recorded in the KE group. None of the DM cups in both groups was revised or awaiting revision. Conclusion Coptos TH cups achieve similar results to the cemented DM on KE ring at the medium term but long term outcome remains to be seen.

show abstract

Instability After All-Cause Acetabular-Only Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Remains a Clinical Problem

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Dual-mobility constructs versus large femoral head bearings in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Cementless augmented versus cemented Dual Mobility cups: medium-term outcome of case series with a control group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About