International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2245–2251 | Cite as

Revision total hip arthroplasty with a Kerboull plate: comparative outcomes using standard versus dual mobility cups

  • Chahine Assi
  • Jacques Caton
  • Wissam Fawaz
  • Camille Samaha
  • Kaissar YammineEmail author
Original Paper



Instability is a major complication in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups were shown to reduce the risk of post-operative implant dislocation. Few case-series studies assessed the outcomes of cemented DM cups when associated to acetabular reconstruction antiprotrusio cages. No published comparative studies were found to look for outcome differences between standard cups (SC) and DM cups in first revision THA associated with a Kerboull plate (KP) and acetabular bone grafting.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective comparative study of two groups of patients in two institutions. All cases were first revision THA with KP reconstruction; a cemented standard cup (SC) was used in one institution (THA-SC group) while a cemented DM cup was used in the second institution (THA-DM group). The posterolateral approach and the same technique for KP placement, the cross technique, were performed in both groups. Primary outcomes were dislocation and revision rates. Survivorship and clinical and radiological results were set to be secondary outcomes. There were ten patients (13 hips) in the first group and 16 patients (16 hips) in the second with a mean follow-up clinical and radiological evaluation of 74.2 ± 47.9 months.


Besides age, no significant demographic differences were present between both groups. There were three dislocations (23%) in the first group treated with close reduction compared to none in the second (p = 0.04). No further episode of dislocation or revision surgery occurred until the last follow-up in both groups. The mean Harris Hip Scores for the THA-SC and THA-DM groups were 87.5 ± 10.9 and 87.4 ± 12.1, respectively. When present, radiolucent lines were less than 1 mm thick and were non-progressive in both groups. In all patients, complete trabeculation remodeling or cortical repair of the graft was observed.


The cup type was the single variable which could account for the observed dislocation rate difference. The mid-term results of using DM cups with KP in first revision THA seem very encouraging. Our findings add to the previously published results on the excellent outcomes in terms of stability in revision THA when using DM cups.


Total hip arthroplasty Revision total hip arthroplasty Dislocation Dual mobility 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Assi and Caton declare royalties from Lepine Group. Fawaz, Samaha, and Yammine have no financial statement to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Bozic KJ, Kamath AF, Ong K, Lau E, Kurtz S, Chan V, Vail TP, Rubash H, Berry DJ (2015) Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):2131–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Herberts P (2005) The Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Annu Rep 2005 Available at:
  3. 3.
    Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF (2002) Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(10):1788–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel PD, Potts A, Froimson MI (2007) The dislocating hip arthroplasty: prevention and treatment. J Arthroplast 22(4 Suppl 1):86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yun AG, Padgett D, Pellicci P, Dorr LD (2005) Constrained acetabular liners: mechanisms of failure. J Arthroplast 20(4):536–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams JT Jr, Ragland PS, Clarke S (2007) Constrained components for the unstable hip following total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop 31(3):273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bousquet G, Gazielly D, Girardin P, Debiesse JL, Relave M, Israeli A (1985) The ceramic coated cementless total hip arthroplasty. Basic concepts and surgical technique. J Orthop Surg 1:15–28Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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(3):511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Assi C, El-Najjar E, Samaha C, Yammine K (2017) Outcomes of dual mobility cups in a young Middle Eastern population and its influence on life style. Int Orthop 41(3):619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Assi C, Kheir N, Samaha C, Kouyoumjian P, Yammine K (2018) Early results of total hip arthroplasty using dual-mobility cup in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. SICOT-J 4:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(2):389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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(6):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Girard J, Combes A, Herent S, Migaud H (2011) Metal-on-metal cups cemented into reinforcement rings: a possible new acetabular reconstruction procedure for young and active patients. J Arthroplast 26:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kawai T, Tanaka C, Ikenaga M, Kanoe H, Okudaira S (2010) Total hip arthroplasty using Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device for rapidly destructive coxarthrosis. J Arthroplast 25:432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Okano K, Miyata N, Enomoto H, Osaki M, Shindo H (2010) Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross-plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum. J Arthroplast 25:594–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lunn JV, Kearns SS, Quinlan W, Murray P, Byrne JO (2005) Impaction allografting and the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device: 35 hips followed for 3—7 years. Acta Orthop 76:296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schneider L, Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a reconstruction cage device and a cemented dual mobility cup. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(8):807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pattyn C, Audenaert E (2012) Early complications after revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented dual-mobility socket and reinforcement ring. Acta Orthop Belg 78(3):357–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vasukutty NL, Middleton RG, Matthews EC, Young PS, Uzoigwe CE, Minhas TH (2012) The double-mobility acetabular component in revision total hip replacement: the United Kingdom experience. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94(5):603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wegrzyn J, Pibarot V, Jacquel A, Carret JP, Béjui-Hugues J, Guyen O (2014) Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull cross-plate, structural allograft and cemented dual-mobility cup in revision THA at a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 29(2):432–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Assi C, Caton J, Aslanian T, Samaha C, Yammine K (2018) The cross technique for the positioning of Kerboull plate in acetabular reconstruction surgery. SICOT-J 4:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement : incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grodet H, Maisse N, Fodzo E, Caillon F, Quiennec C (2006) Evaluation de l’incorporation des greffons en pratique clinique. In: Groupe Integra (ed) La reprise totale de hanche, Sauramps Medical, France, pp 251–256Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Batailler C, Fary C, Verdier R, Aslanian T, Caton J, Lustig S (2017) The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review. Int Orthop 41(3):645–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Viste A, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH (2017) Dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41(3):535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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):1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE (1996) Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(5):693–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pieringer H, Auersperg V, Böhler N (2006) Reconstruction of severe acetabular bone-deficiency: the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(4):489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83(6):862–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Stiehl JB, Mont MA (2008) Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop 32(5):597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mi R, Grassi A, Costa GG, Lazaro LE, Lo Presti M, Zaffagnini S (2018) The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    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
  37. 37.
    Caton JH, Ferreira A (2017) Dual-mobility cup: a new French revolution. Int Orthop 41(3):433–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohaddes M, Cnudde P, Rolfson O, Wall A, Kärrholm J (2017) Use of dual-mobility cup in revision hip arthroplasty reduces the risk for further dislocation: analysis of seven hundred and ninety one first-time revisions performed due to dislocation, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Int Orthop 41(3):583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noyer D, Caton JH (2017) Once upon a time.... dual mobility: history. Int Orthop 41(3):611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Neri T, Boyer B, Geringer J, Di Iorio A, Caton JH, PhiIippot R, Farizon F (2018) Intraprosthetic dislocation of dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: still occurring? Int Orthop. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Aslanian T (2017) All dual mobility cups are not the same. Int Orthop 41(3):573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hernigou P, Dubory A, Potage D, Roubineau F, Flouzat Lachaniette CH (2017) Dual-mobility arthroplasty failure: a rationale review of causes and technical considerations for revision. Int Orthop 41(3):481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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(4):927–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryLebanese American University Medical Center-Rizk HospitalBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Institut de Chirurgie OrthopediqueLyonFrance
  3. 3.Center for Evidence-Based Anatomy, Sports & Orthopedic ResearchBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations