Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Lefèvre retentive cup compared with the dual mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision for dislocation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Limiting the risk of dislocation is one of the main aims of both dual mobility and Lefèvre retentive cups. However, these devices have never been compared. The goal of our study was to compare these devices in total hip arthroplasty revisions for instability. The judgement criterion was non-recurrence of dislocation in a follow-up period of eight years.

Methods

This retrospective case-control study compared two continuous paired series of total hip arthroplasty revisions for instability. These series included 63 patients and 159 patients with implantation of a Lefèvre retentive cup and a dual mobility cup, respectively.

Results

The success rate at eight years (i.e., no recurrence) was 91 ± 0.05% and 95 ± 0.02% in the Lefèvre retentive cup and dual mobility groups, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.6).

Conclusion

It seems that the Lefèvre retentive cup provides comparable outcomes with the dual mobility cup in the total hip arthroplasty revisions for instability, avoiding recurrence in long term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, Pedersen DR, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM et al (2004) Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:690–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT (2003) Ten-year results with hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:885–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Engh CA, Culpepper WJ, Engh CA (1997) Long-term results of use of the anatomic medullary locking prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meding JB, Keating EM, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Berend ME (2004) Minimum ten-year follow-up of a straight-stemmed, plasma-sprayed, titanium-alloy, uncemented femoral component in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:92–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Erivan R, Villatte G, Dartus J, Reina N, Descamps S, Boisgard S (2019) Progression and projection for hip surgery in France, 2008-2070: epidemiologic study with trend and projection analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105:1227–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA et al (2015) Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1386–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 1076–81

  8. Springer BD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL, Odum SM, Masonis JL (2009) Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Söderman P (2002) The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg A 2:2–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:128–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A, SoFCOT Group (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3863–3869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martinot P, Blairon A, Putman S, Pasquier G, Girard J, Migaud H (2018) Course of dislocated posterior hip arthroplasty: a continuous 232-patient series at a mean 10 years’ follow up (range, 1-22 years). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:325–331

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP et al (2009) The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1614–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lautridou C, Lebel B, Burdin G, Vielpeau C (2008) Survival of the cementless Bousquet dual mobility cup: minimum 15-year follow-up of 437 total hip arthroplasties. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 94:731–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. De Martino I, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Sculco PK, Sculco TP (2014) Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop 5:180–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Darrith B, Courtney PM, Della Valle CJ (2018) Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J 100:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mertl P, Combes A, Leiber-Wackenheim F, Fessy MH, Girard J, Migaud H (2012) Recurrence of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty revision using dual mobility cups was rare in 180 hips followed over 7 years. HSS J 8:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Deirmengian CA, Breien KM, Weeden SH, Sporer SM et al (2008) The use of a tripolar articulation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast:1182–1188

  19. Cooke CC, Hozack W, Lavernia C, Sharkey P, Shastri S, Rothman RH (2003) Early failure mechanisms of constrained tripolar acetabular sockets used in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 827–33

  20. Della Valle CJ, Chang D, Sporer S, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Paprosky WG (2005) High failure rate of a constrained acetabular liner in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20:103–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS (2002) The use of constrained components in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 10:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yun AG, Padgett D, Pellicci P, Dorr LD (2005) Constrained acetabular liners: mechanisms of failure. J Arthroplast 20:36–41

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jones SA (2018) Constrained acetabular liners. J Arthroplast 33:1331–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clavé A, Maurer D, Tristan L, Dubrana F, Lefèvre C, Pandit H (2016) Midterm survivorship of the Lefèvre constrained liner: a consecutive multisurgeon series of 166 cases. J Arthroplast 31:1970–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hernigou P, Filippini P, Flouzat-Lachaniette C-H, Batista SU, Poignard A (2010) Constrained liner in neurologic or cognitively impaired patients undergoing primary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3255–3262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hernigou P, Ratte L, Roubineau F, Pariat J, Mirouse G, Guissou I et al (2013) The risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty for fractures is decreased with retentive cups. Int Orthop 37:1219–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clavé A. (2018) La double mobilité chez les patients neurologiques. Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT

  28. Williams JT, Ragland PS, Clarke S (2007) Constrained components for the unstable hip following total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop 31:273–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis PL, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, Cuthbert AR (2017) Constrained acetabular components used in revision total hip arthroplasty: a registry analysis. J Arthroplast 32:3102–3107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Martino I, D’Apolito R, Soranoglou VG, Poultsides LA, Sculco PK, Sculco TP (2017) Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review. The Bone & Joint Journal:18–24

  31. De l’Escalopier N, Dumaine V, Auberger G, Babinet A, Courpied JP, Anract P, Hamadouche M (2020) Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up. Int Orthop 44(2):253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stucinskas J, Kalvaitis T, Smailys A, Robertsson O, Tarasevicius S (2018) Comparison of dual mobility cup and other surgical construts used for three hundred and sixty two first time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations: five year results from Lithuanian arthroplasty register. Int Orthop 42(5):1015–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Romagnoli M, Grassi A, Costa GG, Lazaro LE, Lo Presti M, Zaffagnini S (2019) The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop 43(5):1071–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2012) Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation: 228 patients from the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 566–71

  35. Guo L, Yang Y, An B, Yang Y, Shi L, Han X et al (2017) Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 38:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Frankel A, Booth RE, Balderston RA, Cohn J, Rothman RH (1993) Complications of trochanteric osteotomy. Long-term implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res:209–213

  37. Carter AH, Sheehan EC, Mortazavi SMJ, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J (2011) Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure? J Arthroplast 26:46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Adeline Pierache for help managing the study statistics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology Surgery, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France

    Julien Labban, Hoël Letissier & Christian Lefèvre

  2. School of Medicine, Western Brittany University, Brest, France

    Julien Labban, Hoël Letissier & Christian Lefèvre

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France

    Patrice Mertl

  4. Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Traitement de l’Information Médicale, LaTIM UMR 1101 Institut National de la Santé Et de la Recherche Médicale, Université de Bretagne Occidentale INSERM-UBO, Brest, France

    Christian Lefèvre & Arnaud Clavé

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France

    Henri Migaud

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saint-George Private Hospital, Nice, France

    Arnaud Clavé

Authors
  1. Julien Labban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hoël Letissier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrice Mertl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Lefèvre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henri Migaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arnaud Clavé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julien Labban.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Labban, J., Letissier, H., Mertl, P. et al. The Lefèvre retentive cup compared with the dual mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision for dislocation. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 1661–1667 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04601-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04601-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation