Salvage of a monoblock metal-on-metal cup using a dual mobility liner: a two-year MRI follow-up study
- 389 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBirmingham Metal-on-metal Total hip arthroplasty Osteolysis Revision Dual mobility liner
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.
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.98b6.36908 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3381-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4468-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar