Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 470, Issue 11, pp 3048–3053

Is a Cementless Dual Mobility Socket in Primary THA a Reasonable Option?

  • Moussa Hamadouche
  • Hervé Arnould
  • Bertrand Bouxin
Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Abstract

Background

Dislocation after THA continues to be relatively common. Dual mobility sockets have been associated with low dislocation rates, but it remains unclear whether their use in primary THA would not introduce additional complications.

Questions/Purposes

We therefore asked whether a current cementless dual mobility socket (1) reduced the dislocation rate after primary THA, (2) provided a pain-free and mobile hip, and (3) provided durable radiographic fixation of the acetabular component without any unique modes of failure.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 168 patients who underwent primary THA using a dual mobility socket between January 2000 and June 2002. The average age at surgery was 67 years. We assessed the rate of dislocation, hip function, and acetabular fixation on serial radiographs. Of the 168 patients, 119 (71%) had clinical and radiographic evaluation at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 6 years; range, 5–8 years).

Results

A long-neck option left the base of the Morse taper uncovered in 53 hips. Four patients underwent revision for dislocation between the femoral head and the mobile insert (intraprosthetic dislocation) at a mean 6 years; all four revisions occurred among the 53 hips with an incompletely covered Morse taper.

Conclusions

A current cementless dual mobility socket was associated with a pain-free and mobile hip and durable acetabular fixation without dislocations if the long-neck option was not used. However, intraprosthetic dislocation related to contact at the femoral neck to mobile insert articulation required revision in four hips. Surgeons should be aware of this specific complication.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Adam P, Farizon F, Fessy MH. [Dual articulation retentive acetabular liners and wear: surface analysis of 40 retrieved polyethylene implants] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005;91:627–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aubriot J, Lesimple P, Leclercq S. [Study of Bousquet’s non-cemented acetabular implant in 100 hybrid total hip prostheses (Charnley type cemented femoral component): average 5-year follow-up] [in French]. Acta Orthop Belg. 1993;59(suppl 1):267–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ. Unstable total hip arthroplasty: detailed overview. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:265–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bousquet G, Gazielly DF, Girardin P, Debiesse JL, Relaye M, Israeli A. The ceramic coated cementless total hip arthroplasty: basic concepts and surgical technique. J Orthop Surg Tech. 1985;1:15–28.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F. Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop. 2012;36:511–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandler RW, Dorr LD, Perry J. The functional cost of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;168:168–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:45–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farizon F, de Lavison R, Azoulai JJ, Bousquet G. Results with a cementless alumina-coated cup with dual mobility: a twelve-year follow-up study. Int Orthop. 1998;22:219–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyen O, Chen QS, Bejui-Hugues J, Berry DJ, An KN. Unconstrained tripolar hip implants: effect on hip stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:202–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G, Chevillotte C, Bejui-Hugues J. Use of a dual mobility socket to manage total hip arthroplasty instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:465–472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyen, O, Pibarot V, Vaz G, Chevillotte C, Caret JP, Bejui-Hugues J. Unconstrained tripolar implants for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at risk for dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:849–858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamadouche M, Biau DJ, Huten D, Musset T, Gaucher F. The use of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3248–3254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    [Health Authority. Evaluation of total hip prostheses: generic descriptions revising the list of reimbursable products and services of hip joint implants] [in French]. September 2007. Available at: www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/rapport_evaluation_des_prothese_de_hanche.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2012.
  16. 16.
    Langlais FL, Ropars M, Gaucher F, Musset T, Chaix O. Dual mobility cemented cups have low dislocation rates in THA revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:389–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lautridou C, Lebel B, Burdin G, Vielpeau C. [Survival of the cementless Bousquet dual mobility cup: minimum 15-year follow-up of 437 total hip arthroplasties] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:731–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leclercq S, Benoit JY, de Rosa JP, Euvrard P, Leteurtre C, Girardin P. [Results of the Evora dual mobility socket: five years follow-up] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leclercq S, El Blidi S, Aubriot JH. [Bousquet’s device in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of a total hip prosthesis: apropos of 13 cases] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1995;81:389–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lecuire F, Benareau J, Rubini J, Basso M. [Intra-prosthetic dislocation of the Bousquet dual mobility socket] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004;90:249–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leiber-Wackenheim F, Brunschweiler B, Ehlinger M, Gabrion A, Mertl P. Treatment of recurrent THR dislocation using a cementless dual mobility cup: a 59 cases series with a mean 8 years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:8–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA. Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration: an experimental study. J Arthroplasty. 1989;4:245–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merle d’Aubigné R. [Numerical evaluation of hip function] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1970;56:481–486.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:697–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pellegrini VD, Hughes SS, Evarts CM. A collarless cobalt-chrome femoral component in uncemented total hip arthroplasty: five- to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:814–821.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Philippot R, Adam P, Farizon F, Fessy MH, Bousquet G. [Survival of cementless dual mobility sockets: ten-year follow-up] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006;92:326–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Philippot R, Adam P, Reckhaus M, Delangle F, Verdot FX, Curvale G, Farizon F. [Prevention of dislocation in total hip revision surgery using a dual mobility design] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2009;95:407–413.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philippot R, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Adam P, Farizon F. 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. 2009;33:927–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Philippot R, Farizon F, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Derhi G, Bonnan J, Fessy MH, Lecuire F. [Survival of dual mobility socket with a mean 17 years follow-up] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:43–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanchez-Sotelo J, Haidukewych GJ, Boberg C. Hospital cost of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006,88:290–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C. The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop. 2011;35:225–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moussa Hamadouche
    • 1
  • Hervé Arnould
    • 2
  • Bertrand Bouxin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedic Research Center, Service ACentre Hospitalo-Universitaire Cochin-Port RoyalParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryCentre Hospitalier FleyriatBourg en BresseFrance
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryInstitut CalotBerck sur MerFrance

Personalised recommendations