International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1035–1041 | Cite as

Salvage of a monoblock metal-on-metal cup using a dual mobility liner: a two-year MRI follow-up study

  • Maximilian F. Kasparek
  • Lisa Renner
  • Martin Faschingbauer
  • Wenzel Waldstein
  • Kilian Rueckl
  • Friedrich BoettnerEmail author
Original Paper



Revision of failed modular metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-THA) can be technically difficult. A dual mobility liner can help to salvage a well-fixed acetabular component. The present paper reports the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision of failed Birmingham modular MoM-THA using a dual mobility liner.


The present study reports on ten patients (3 female and 7 male) with 11 revision THAs. Patients underwent revision an average of 51 months (range 40–73 months) after index procedure. Mean follow-up after the revision was 31 months (range 24–37 months) and all patients underwent an MRI with metal artifact reduction software (MARS) at least two years after revision to assess for local polyethylene wear and osteolysis.


The Harris Hip score improved from 92.2 (range 63.0–100.0) to 100.0 (p = 0.072). One patient had a one-time dislocation within seven days of surgery. No patient required additional surgeries. Radiographs showed no signs of component loosening and osteolysis and MRI imaging revealed no evidence of polyethylene wear or osteolysis.


A dual mobility liner in an existing Birmingham cup can provide excellent clinical and radiological short-term results without MRI evidence of increased polyethylene wear. Post-operative hip precautions should be enforced.


Birmingham Metal-on-metal Total hip arthroplasty Osteolysis Revision Dual mobility liner 


Author contribution

We attest to the fact that all authors have participated in the research, read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

We certify that we have not signed any agreement with commercial interest related to this study, which would in any way limit publication of any and all data generated for the study or to delay publication for any reason.

Dr. Boettner reports personal fees from Smith & Nephew, Ortho Development Corporation and from DePuy, outside the submitted work.


  1. 1.
    Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW (2012) Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 379:1199–1204. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Renner L, Faschingbauer M, Schmidt-Braekling T, Boettner F (2016) Cobalt serum levels differ in well functioning Birmingham resurfacing and Birmingham modular THA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:715–721. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waldstein W, Schmidt-Braekling T, Boettner F (2014) MRI does not detect acetabular osteolysis around metal-on-metal Birmingham THA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:1009–1015. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Sneller MA (2015) Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: dislocation infrequent but survivorship poor. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:509–520. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandiford NA, Kabir C, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner J, Nuthall T (2008) Revision of the Birmingham hip resurfacing cup: technical notes and the use of a novel technique to overcome unique problems. Hip Int 18:220–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Munro JT, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2014) High complication rate after revision of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:523–528. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plummer DR, Botero HG, Berend KR, Pritchett JW, Lombardi AV, Della Valle CJ (2016) Salvage of Monoblock metal-on-metal Acetabular components using a dual-mobility bearing. J Arthroplast 31:846–849. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F, Nistri L, Innocenti M (2012) A dual-mobility cup reduces risk of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3542–3548. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 26:57–61. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viste A, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH (2017) Dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41:535–542. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caton JH, Ferreira A (2017) Dual-mobility cup: a new French revolution. Int Orthop 41:433–437. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bousquet G, Argenson C, Godeneche JL, Cisterne JP, Gazielly DF, Girardin P, Debiesse JL (1986) Recovery after aseptic loosening of cemented total hip arthroplasties with Bousquet’s cementless prosthesis. Apropos of 136 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2(72 Suppl):70–74Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renner L, Faschingbauer M, Boettner F (2015) Is there a rationale to use a dual mobility poly insert for failed Birmingham metal-on-metal hip replacements? A retrieval analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:1177–1181. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell P, Ebramzadeh E, Nelson S, Takamura K, De Smet K, Amstutz HC (2010) Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2321–2327. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matharu GS, Pynsent PB, Dunlop DJ (2014) Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes. Hip Int 24:311–320. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 41:469–473. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pritchett JW (2014) One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris. J Arthroplast 29:219–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sassoon AA, Barrack RL (2016) Pseudotumour formation and subsequent resolution in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty following revision: instructional review and an illustrative case report with revision using a dual mobility design. Bone Joint J 98-b:736–740. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooper HJ, Ranawat AS, Potter HG, Foo LF, Koob TW, Ranawat CS (2010) Early reactive synovitis and osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3278–3285. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG (2014) MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiographics 34:E106–E132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 31:1828–1835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loving L, Lee RK, Herrera L, Essner AP, Nevelos JE (2013) Wear performance evaluation of a contemporary dual mobility hip bearing using multiple hip simulator testing conditions. J Arthroplast 28:1041–1046. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 41:521–527. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyer B, Neri T, Geringer J, Di Iorio A, Philippot R, Farizon F (2017) Understanding wear in dual mobility total hip replacement: first generation explant wear patterns. Int Orthop 41:529–533. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wong JM, Liu YL, Graves S, de Steiger R (2015) What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:3458–3464. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Terrier A, Latypova A, Guillemin M, Parvex V, Guyen O (2017) Dual mobility cups provide biomechanical advantages in situations at risk for dislocation: a finite element analysis. Int Orthop 41:551–556. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamadouche M, Ropars M, Rodaix C, Musset T, Gaucher F, Biau D, Courpied JP, Huten D (2017) Five to thirteen year results of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Int Orthop 41:513–519. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mohaddes M, Cnudde P, Rolfson O, Wall A, Karrholm 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 41:583–588. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Triantafyllopoulos GK, Elpers ME, Burket JC, Esposito CI, Padgett DE, Wright TM (2016) Otto Aufranc award: large heads do not increase damage at the head-neck taper of metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:330–338. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goyal N, Ho H, Fricka KB, Engh CA Jr (2014) Do you have to remove a corroded femoral stem? J Arthroplast 29:139–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian F. Kasparek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa Renner
    • 3
  • Martin Faschingbauer
    • 4
  • Wenzel Waldstein
    • 2
  • Kilian Rueckl
    • 1
  • Friedrich Boettner
    • 1
  1. 1.Adult Reconstruction & Joint Replacement Division, Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedics, Vienna General HospitalMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Orthopaedic Department, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, CharitéUniversitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations