Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1071–1082 | Cite as

The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

  • Matteo Romagnoli
  • Alberto Grassi
  • Giuseppe Gianluca CostaEmail author
  • Lionel E Lazaro
  • Mirco Lo Presti
  • Stefano Zaffagnini
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Although long-term reports of total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed successful results, instability remains a major complication. Recently, dual-mobility cups (DMC) have gained more and more interest among clinicians, with encouraging results in terms of lower rate of dislocation associated with good clinical results, but a lack of evidence exists regarding the real efficacy of this implant design compared to traditional fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasties.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Google scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE by two independent reviewers for comparative studies available till December 2017, with the primary objective to demonstrate a real lower dislocation rate of DMC implants compared to unipolar fixed-bearing cup designs. A meta-analysis was conducted with the collected pooled data about dislocation rate, calculating the risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables. Heterogeneity was tested using the χ2 and Higgins’ I2 tests. A fixed-effect model was used because the statistical heterogeneity was below 50%.

Results

After performing a critical exclusion process, the number of eligible studies included for final synthesis considered was 15, describing the results of a total of 2408 total hip arthroplasties (50.6% with a dual-mobility acetabular cup design, 49.4% with a standard fixed-bearing design). The fixed-effect meta-analysis showed a slight significant risk ratio of 0.16 (95% CI, 0.09, 0.28; I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001); a statistically significant difference in favor of the DMC group was maintained also considering only primary or revision arthroplasties, traumatic fractures or elective patients with diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular osteonecrosis or rheumatic arthritis.

Conclusions

With the intrinsic limitations of our study design and based on the current available data, this study demonstrates that dual-mobility acetabular components decrease the risk of post-operative instability also in high-risk patients, both in primary and revision hip arthroplasties. However, new high-quality studies, possibly with a randomized control design, should be undertaken in order to strengthen the present data.

Study design

Level of Evidence III, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Dual-mobility cup Tripolar cup Dislocation Total hip arthroplasty 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Romagnoli M, Costa G.G., and other authors have nothing to disclose. Prof. Zaffagnini reports personal fees from DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, and Smith & Nephew as speaker bureau, and from Springer, outside the submitted work.

References

  1. 1.
    Patel PD, Potts A, Froimson MI (2007) The dislocating hip arthroplasty: prevention and treatment. J Arthroplast 22(suppl 1):86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bystrom S, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI (2003) Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation. Acta Orthop Scand 74(5):514–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khatod M, Barber T, Paxton E, Namba R, Fithian D (2006) An analysis of hip dislocation with a contemporary total joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meek RMD, Allan DB, McPhillips G, Kerr L, Howie CR (2006) Epidemiology of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 447:9–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garellick G, Karrholm J, Rogmark C et al. (2001) Annual report. Swedish hip Arthroplasty register. (http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/%C3%85rsrapport_2011_eng_webb.sflb.ashx)
  6. 6.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2015) Annual report. Adelaide: AOA; (https://www.aoa.org.au/docs/default-source/annualreports/annual-report-2012-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=6)
  7. 7.
    Annual report June 2010: the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. [http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/default.htm]
  8. 8.
    Torre M, Bellino S, Luzi I, Ceccarelli S, Salvatori G, Balducci MT, Piffer S, Zanoli G, Romanini E, Boniforti F, Carrani F (2016) Italian Register Arthroplasty Project. Third Report. Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore. Avaible via http://www.iss.it/binary/riap2/cont/3_Report_ RIAPcompleto_2016.pdf
  9. 9.
    Berry DJ, Von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS (2004) The cumulative long-term risk of dislocation after primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86.A(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dargel J, Oppermann J, Brüggemann GP, Eysel P (2014) Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 111(51–52):884–890PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo L, Yang Y, An B, Yang Y, Shi L, Han X, Gao S (2017) Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 38:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams JT Jr, Ragland PS, Clarke S (2007) Constrained components for the unstable hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop 31(3):273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyen O (2017) Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA. EFORT Open Rev 1(5):197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 36:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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. Bone Joint J 99-B(ASuppl1):18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 54-B:61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J (1966) Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 48-B:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orthopedic Network News. 2015 Hip and knee implant review. 2015. https://www.orthopedicnetworknews.com/archives/onn263s1.pdf. Accessed 2016 Oct 3
  19. 19.
    Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:965–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adam P, Philippe R, Ehlinger M, Roche O, Bonnomet F, Molé D, Fessy MH, French Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology SoFCOT (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 98:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prudhon JL, Desmarchelier R, Hamadouche M, Delaunay C, Verdier R, SoFCOT (2017) 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 41(3):455–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Epinette JA, Lafuma A, Robert J, Doz M (2016) Cost-effectiveness model comparing dual-mobility to fixed-bearing designs for total hip replacement in France. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(2):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaudin G, Ferreira A, Gaillard R, Prudhon JL, Caton JH, Lustig S (2017) Equivalent wear performance of dual mobility bearing compared with standard bearing in total hip arthroplasty: in vitro study. Int Orthop 41(3):521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wegrzyn J, Thoreson AR, Guyen O, Lewallen DG, An KN (2013) Cementation of a dual-mobility acetabular component into a well-fixed metal shell during revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical validation. J Orthop Res 31(6):991–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bensen AS, Jakobsen T, Krarup N (2014) Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation and re-operation when used to treat displaced femoral neck fractures. Int Orthop 38(6):1241–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2012) The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 83(5):442–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marx RG, Wilson SM, Swiontkowski MF (2015) Updating the assignment of levels of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0.The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 11, 2016
  31. 31.
    Charissoux JL, Asloum Y, Marcheix PS (2014) Surgical management of recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(1 Suppl):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parvizi J, Picinic E, Sharkey PF (2008) Revision total hip arthroplasty for instability: surgical techniques and principles. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(5):1134–1142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hedges LV, Vevea JL (1998) Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 3(4):486–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bouchet R, Mercier N, Saragaglia D (2011) Posterior approach and dislocation rate: a 213 total hip replacements case-control study comparing the dual mobility cup with a conventional 28-mm metal head/polyethylene prosthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(1):2–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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 whether a dual mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk. Int Orthop 38(6):1125–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chalmers BP, Perry KI, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW, Abdel MP (2017) Conversion of hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty utilizing a dual-mobility construct compared with large femoral heads. J Arthroplast 32(10):3071–3075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    D'Apuzzo MR, Nevelos J, Yeager A, Westrich GH (2014) Relative head size increase using an anatomic dual mobility hip prosthesis compared to traditional hip arthroplasty: impact on hip stability. J Arthroplast 29(9):1854–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Epinette JA (2015) Clinical outcomes, survivorship and adverse events with mobile-bearings versus fixed-bearings in hip arthroplasty-a prospective comparative cohort study of 143 ADM versus 130 trident cups at 2 to 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 30(2):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gonzalez AI, Bartolone P, Lubbeke A, Dupuis Lozeron E, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P, Christofilopoulos P (2017) Comparison of dual-mobility cup and unipolar cup for prevention of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 88(1):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Griffin XL, Parsons N, Achten J, Costa ML (2016) A randomized feasibility study comparing total hip arthroplasty with and without dual mobility acetabular component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur: the Warwick hip trauma evaluation two: WHiTE two. Bone Joint J 98-B(11):1431–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 474(10):2202–2210Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hernigou P, Auregan JC, Potage D, Roubineau F, Flouzat Lachaniette CH, Dubory A (2017) Dual-mobility implants prevent hip dislocation following hip revision in obese patients. Int Orthop 41(3):469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Homma Y, Baba T, Kobayashi H, Desroches A, Ochi H, Ozaki Y, Matsumoto M, Yuasa T, Kaneko K (2016) Benefit and risk in short term after total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach combined with dual mobility cup. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(6):619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jauregui JJ, Pierce TP, Elmallah RK, Cherian JJ, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2016) Dual mobility cups: an effective prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasties for preventing dislocations. Hip Int 26(1):57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perrin A, Saab M, Putman S, Benad K, Drumez E, Chantelot C (2017) The benefit of the systematic revision of the acetabular implant in favor of a dual mobility articulation during the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a 49 cases prospective comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2037-2
  48. 48.
    Rowan FE, Salvatore AJ, Lange JK, Westrich GH (2017) Dual-mobility vs fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years of age: a single-institution, matched-cohort analysis. J Arthroplast 32(10):3076–3081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tarasevicius S, Busevicius M, Robertsson O, Wingstrand H (2010) Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation rate after arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6(11):175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tarasevicius S, Robertsson O, Dobozinskas P, Wingstrand H (2013) A comparison of outcomes and dislocation rates using dual articulation cups and THA for intracapsular femoral neck fractures. Hip Int 23(1):22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bousquet G, Gazielly DF, Debiesse JL (1985) The ceramic coated cementless total hip arthroplasty. Basic concepts and surgical technique. J Orthop Surg Tech 1:15–28Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Howie DW, Holubowycz OT, Middleton R (2012) Large Articulation Study Group. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 94-A:1095–1102Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Malik A, Maheshawari A, Dorr LD (2007) Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1832–1842Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cooper HJ, Della Valle CJ (2014) Large diameter femoral heads: is bigger always better? Bone Joint J 96B(11 Suppl. A):23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A, So FG (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3863–3869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vahedi H, Makhdom AM, Parvizi J (2017) Dual mobility acetabular cup for total hip arthroplasty: use with caution. Expert Rev Med Devices 14(3):237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Adam P, Farizon F, Fessy MH (2014) Dual mobility retentive acetabular liners and wear: surface analysis of 40 retrieved polyethylene implants. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    D'Apuzzo MR, Koch CN, Esposito CI, Elpers ME, Wright TM, Westrich GH (2016) Assessment of damage on a dual mobility acetabular system. J Arthroplast 31:1828–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vermersch T, Viste A, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH (2015) Prospective longitudinal study of one hundred patients with total hip arthroplasty using a second-generation cementless dual-mobility cup. Int Orthop 39:2097–2101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Banzhof JA, Robbins CE, van der Ven A, Talmo CT, Bono JV (2013) Femoral head dislodgement complicating use of dual mobility prosthesis for recurrent instability. J Arthroplast 28:543.e1–543.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Odland AN, Sierra RJ (2014) Intraprosthetic dislocation of a contemporary dual-mobility design used during conversion THA. Orthopedics 37:e1124–e1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Barlow BT, McLawhorn AS, Westrich GH (2017) The cost-effectiveness of dual mobility implants for primary total hip arthroplasty: a computer-based cost-utility model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 3 99(9):768–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Romagnoli
    • 1
  • Alberto Grassi
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Gianluca Costa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lionel E Lazaro
    • 2
  • Mirco Lo Presti
    • 1
  • Stefano Zaffagnini
    • 1
  1. 1.II Orthopaedic Clinic and Biomechanics LaboratoryIRCSS Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Hospital for Special Surgery and New York Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations