Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up
- 50 Downloads
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.
From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.
Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4–31.3), p = 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC95%, 79.9–100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank, p = 0.5).
The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.
KeywordsRevision Total hip arthroplasty Dual mobility cup Dislocation
- 2.Lebeau N, Bayle M, Belhaouane R et al (2017) Total hip arthroplasty revision by dual-mobility acetabular cup cemented in a metal reinforcement: a 62 case series at a minimum 5 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:679–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar