Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 481–490 | Cite as

Dual-mobility arthroplasty failure: a rationale review of causes and technical considerations for revision

  • Philippe HernigouEmail author
  • Arnaud Dubory
  • Damien Potage
  • François Roubineau
  • Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Dual-mobility arthroplasty is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in appropriately selected, active adults with degenerative, necrotic or post-traumatic hip disease or with revision hip arthroplasty. Numerous papers have been published with results of dual-mobility arthroplasty, but there have been no comprehensive literature reviews that summarise the most recent findings and help the orthopaedic surgeon facing different scenarios in which revision of one or both components of a dual-mobility arthroplasty is indicated.

Methods

We performed a PubMed search for papers published on dual-mobility arthroplasty that provided data on revision and add our experience in order to describe different revision scenarios. We collected data on revision for any reason, for aseptic loosening, for infection, or for dislocation. For each complication, we summarise causes and diagnosis of this complication and describe the direction of possible therapeutic options.

Results

The dual-mobility arthroplasty offers the benefit of increased stability without compromising clinical outcomes and implant longevity. However, as with conventional arthroplasties, complications are also reported, with the most frequent being cup loosening, dislocation, accelerated wear and infection. Dual-mobility implants also have some specific complications secondary to their specific design, with the presence of a third joint. For example, intraprosthetic dislocation due to retentive failure of the polyethylene (PE) liner on the femoral head is a complication observed exclusively with this type of implant and involves articulation failure between the femoral head and the PE liner. Mechanical conflict with the iliopsoas tendon has also been reported, probably due to femoral head size, cup design, and/or a dysplastic hip. This systematic review of the literature identified several options for treating each complication, and in particular, options regarding conserving or not of one the two articulating devices.

Conclusions

These findings can inform discussions relating to risks and benefits of different therapeutic options when performing revision of a dual-mobility arthroplasty.

Keywords

Dual-mobility failure Dual-mobility revision Hip dislocation Intraprosthetic dislocation Cup loosening Infection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Adam P, Farizon F, Fessy MH (2005) Dual articulation retentive acetabular liners and wear: surface analysis of 40 retrieved polyethylene implants. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 91:627–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adam P, Philippe R, Ehlinger M, Roche O, Bonnomet F, Molé D, Fessy MH (2012) Dual-mobility cups hip arthroplasty as a treatment for displaced fracture of the femoral neck in the elderly. A prospective, systematic, multicenter study with specific focus on postoperative dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:296–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bousquet G, Argenson C, Goneche JL, Cisterne JP, Gazielly DF, Girardin P, Debiesse JL (1986) Recovery after aseptic loosening of cemented total hip arthroplasties with Bousquet’s cementless prosthesis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 72:70–74 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F (2012) Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual-mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop 36:511–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caton JH, Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Aslanian T, Verdier R (2014) A comparative and retrospective study of three hundred and twenty primary Charnley type hip replacements with a minimum follow up of ten years to assess wether a dual-mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk. Int Orthop 38:1125–1129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combes A, Migaud H, Girard J, Duhamel A, Fessy MH (2013) Low rate of dislocation of dual-mobility cups in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3891–3900CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabry C, Langlois J, Hamadouche M, Bader R (2016) intraprosthetic dislocation of dual-mobility cups after total hip arthroplasty: potential causes from a clinical and biomechanical perspective. Int Orthop 40(5):901–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farizon F, de Lavison R, Azoulai JJ, Bousquet G (1998) Results with a cementless alumina-coated cup with dual-mobility. A twelve-year follow-up study. Int Orthop 22:219–224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grazioli A, Ek ET, Rüdiger HA (2012) Biomechanical concept and clinical outcome of dual-mobility cups. Int Orthop 36:2411–2418CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyen O, Chen QS, Bejui-Hugues J, Berry DJ, An KN (2007) unconstrained tripolar hip implants: effect on hip stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:202–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G, Chevillotte C, Béjui-Hugues J (2009) Use of a dual-mobility socket to manage total hip arthroplasty instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:465–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 83:566–571CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamadouche M, Biau DJ, Huten D, Musset T, Gaucher F (2010) The use of a cemented dual-mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3248–3254CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamadouche M, Arnould H, Bouxin B (2012) Is a cementless dual-mobility socket in primary THA a reasonable option? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3048–3053CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernigou P, Filippini P, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH, Batista SU, Poignard A (2010) Constrained liner in neurologic or cognitively impaired patients undergoing primary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(12):3255–3262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hernigou P, Ratte L, Roubineau F, Pariat J, Mirouse G, Guissou I, Allain J, Lachaniette CH (2013) The risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty for fractures is decreased with retentive cups. Int Orthop 37(7):1219–1223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernigou P, Roussignol X, Delambre J, Poignard A, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH (2015) Ceramic-on-ceramic THA associated with fewer dislocations and less muscle degeneration by preserving muscle progenitors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(12):3762–3769CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hernigou P, Trousselier M, Roubineau F, Bouthors C, Flouzat Lachaniette CH (2016) Dual-mobility or constrained liners are more effective than preoperative bariatric surgery in prevention of THA dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4859-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langlais FL, Ropars M, Gaucher F, Musset T, Chaix O (2008) Dual-mobility cemented cups have low dislocation rates in THA revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:389–395CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 94:731–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leclercq S, Benoit JY, de Rosa JP, Tallier E, Leteurtre C, Girardin PH (2013) Evora® chromium-cobalt dual-mobility socket: results at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:923–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lecuire F, Benareau I, Rubini J, Basso M (2004) intraprosthetic dislocation of the Bousquet dual-mobility socket. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90(3):249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Massin P, Orain V, Philippot R, Farizon F, Fessy MH (2012) Fixation failures of dual-mobility cups: a mid-term study of 2601 hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1932–1940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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. HSSJ 8:251–256. doi: 10.1007/s11420-012-9301-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohammed R, Cnudde P (2012) Severe metallosis owing to intraprosthetic dislocation in a failed dual-mobility cup primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:493.e1–493.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Philippeau JM, Durand JM, Carret JP, Leclercq S, Waast D, Gouin F (2010) Dual-mobility design use in preventing total hip replacement dislocation following tumor resection. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:2–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Philippot R, Farizon F, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Derhi G, Bonnan J, Fessy MH, Lecuire F (2008) Survival of cementless dual-mobility socket with a mean 17 years follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 94:e23–e27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philippot R, Adam P, Reckhaus M, Delangle F, Verdot F, Curvale G, Farizon F (2009) Prevention of dislocation in total hip revision surgery using a dual-mobility design. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:407–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Philippot R, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Adam P, Farizon F (2009) The use of a dual-articulation acetabular cup system to prevent dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 384 cases at a mean follow-up of 15 years. Int Orthop 33:927–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Philippot R, Meucci JF, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Modern dualmobility cup implanted with an uncemented stem: about 100 cases with 12-year follow-up. Surg Technol Int 23:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:965–970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Verdier R (2013) Dual-mobility cup: dislocation rate and survivorship at ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop 37:2345–2350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prudhon JL, Steffann F, Ferreira A, Verdier R, Aslanian T, Caton J (2014) Cementless dual-mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision. Int Orthop 38(12):2463–2468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prudhon JL, Desmarchelier R, Hamadouche M, Delaunay C, Verdier R; SOFCOT (2015). Causes for revision of dual-mobility and standard primary total hip arthroplasty : Matched case–control study based on a prospective multicenter study of two thousand and forty four implants. Int Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3064-4
  35. 35.
    Sanders RJ, Swierstra BA, Goosen JH (2013) The use of a dual-mobility concept in total hip arthroplasty patients with spastic disorders: no dislocations in a series of ten cases at midterm follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1011–1016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stulberg SD (2011) Dual poly liner mobility optimizes wear and stability in THA: affirms. Orthopedics 34:e445–e448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tarasevicius S, Busevicius M, Robertsson O, Wingstrand H (2010) Dual-mobility cup reduces dislocation rate after arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:175CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trampuz A, Zimmerli W (2005) Prosthetic joint infections: update in diagnosis and treatment. Swiss Med Wkly 135:243–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME, Berry DJ (1995) Anterior iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:546–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vandenbussche E, Saffarini M, Delogé N, Moctezuma JL, Nogler M (2007) Hemispheric cups do not reproduce acetabular rim morphology. Acta Orthop 78:327–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C (2011) The dual-mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop 35:225–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zmistowski B, Restrepo C, Huang R, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J (2012) Periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: a complete understanding of white blood cell count and differential. J Arthroplasty 27:1589–1593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Hernigou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arnaud Dubory
    • 1
  • Damien Potage
    • 1
  • François Roubineau
    • 1
  • Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette
    • 1
  1. 1.Chirurgie OrthopediqueHopital Henri MondorCreteilFrance

Personalised recommendations