Abstract
Purpose
Revision of failed large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure particularly to reconstruct acetabular bone defect due to osteolysis and to achieve hip stability due to soft tissue damages, both potentially caused by adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of dual mobility cup (DMC) constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with a special attention to the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision.
Methods
Between 2015 and 2019, 57 patients (64 THAs, 41 men, mean age = 65 ± 10 years) underwent revision for MoM THA with the use of DMC were prospectively included in our total joint registry. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years. The causes for revision were adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in 49 THAs (76%), painful hip with elevated blood cobalt-chromium ions in seven (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight (13%). The revision was complete in 22 THAs (34%) and acetabular only in 42 (66%). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-revisions were evaluated at most recent follow-up.
Results
At mean follow-up of six ± 1.5 years, the pre- to postoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 74 ± 19 to 92 ± 4 (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 11 cases (17%): five dislocations (8%), three periprosthetic infections (5%), two aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3%), and two periprosthetic fractures (3%). Re-revision was required in six cases (9%).
Conclusion
The use of DMC is a reliable option to prevent instability and ensure a stable acetabular reconstruction in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings. However, dislocation after revision remains a concern, particularly in cases of severe soft tissue damage related to ARMD.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) was developed as an alternative to conventional metal- or ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in an attempt to decrease the risk of wear-related osteolysis and aseptic loosening and to prevent instability by increasing the jump distance to dislocation with the use of a large head > 36 mm, both potentially contributing to increase THA survivorship [1]. As many as 1 million large head MoM THA have been implanted in the USA [1, 2]. However, multiple national registries worldwide as well as clinical series have demonstrated higher-than-expected rates of complication with MoM THA at mid- to long-term follow-up [1, 3]. To date, outcomes of MoM THA are known to be poorer than for conventional bearings, with revision rates as high as 15.5% after ten years. Moreover, in the context of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), failed large head MoM THA is frequently associated with severe osteolysis and bone loss, as well as with damaged and compromised soft tissues [4, 5]. In such cases, the surgeon is consequently confronted with technical challenges during revision THA, which could increase the risk of overall complications [6, 7]. Particularly, in the presence of ARMD, severe soft tissue damages could result in hip abductor mechanism deficiency and subsequent dislocation which remains a major concern [8].
The effectiveness of dual mobility cups (DMCs) as implant of choice during acetabular reconstruction to prevent dislocation after revision THA has been extensively reported in the literature, including in the context of severe acetabular bone defect reconstruction and/or hip abductor mechanism deficiency [9, 10]. However, to our knowledge, clinical series specifically dedicated to evaluate the outcomes of revision THA performed with the use of DMC constructs for failed large head MoM bearings remain spare [9, 11]. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision and analyzed the outcomes of DMC constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings.
Materials and methods
Patients and surgical procedures
Between 2015 and 2019, 89 revisions of large MoM constructs were identified in our local total joint registry in our hospital, which is an academic centre and a tertiary referral centre. Eighteen revisions for no ARMD-related complications as periprosthetic infection (12 hips), periprosthetic fracture (4 hips), and two aseptic loosening were excluded. Seven cases of ARMD revision; four out at our hospital or three by using a single mobility construct were excluded from this study because of inadequate follow-up or revision with a single mobility construct. Sixty-four revisions for failed MoM THA related to ARMD, painful hip with pathological elevation of blood cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) ions, or implant aseptic loosening were identified and included in this study to be analyzed at latest follow-up (Fig. 1). The MoM implant revised was Durom® cup construct with Metasul® large Diameter Head and CLS/Sportono® stem (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). Fifty-seven patients were included (41 men [74%] and 16 women [26%]) with a mean age at revision of 65 ± ten years and a mean BMI of 28 ± 6 kg/m2. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years (range 4–14 years) (Table 1). The causes for revision were ARMD in 49 THA (76%), painful hip with pathological elevation of blood Co-Cr ions in 7 THA (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight THA (13%). ARMD was diagnosed using metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS-MRI), which was performed for all patients with ion values above 119 nmol/l for Co and 135 nmol/l for Cr regardless of the hip pain [12]. In accordance at the classification of lesion based on MRI described by Hauptfleisch et al. [13], 22 patients present a type I lesion (44%), 21 type II (42%), and six type III (12%). In accordance with the recommendations of Swiss Orthopaedics [14], patients with painful hip associated with blood ion levels above 340 nmol/l for Co and 386 nmol/l for Cr underwent revision even in the absence of ARMD on the MARS-MRI evaluation. Acetabular aseptic loosening was evaluated on serial anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the pelvis and hip by the occurrence of progressive circumferential radiolucent lines and/or evidence of cup migration, according to the criteria of Massin et al. [15]. The mean follow-up was six ± 1.5 years (range 1.5–8 years), with no patients lost to follow-up. Patient informed consent and Institutional Review Board approval were obtained before study initiation (CER-VD #2019–02172).
All revision THAs were performed through a conventional posterolateral approach by or under the direct supervision of a senior fellowship-trained hip arthroplasty surgeon at our institution. The revision concerned acetabular and femoral component (complete) in 22 THA (34%) and was acetabular-only in 42 THA (66%). Acetabular and femoral bone defects were graded according to the Paprosky classifications [16]. Soft tissue damages due to ARMD as well as potential hip abductor deficiency were systematically reported on the operative reports. A single design of true hemispherical DMC was used (Symbol®, Dedienne Santé, Mauguio, France) with a cementless press-fit fixation in 53 THA (82%) and a cemented fixation in 11 THA (18%) being cemented in the bon acetabulum in two THA (3%), in a Ganz reinforcement device in three THA(5%), in a Burch-Schneider anti-protrusion cage in one THA (2%), in a porous tantalum reconstruction shell in three THA (5%) or using a double-socket technique (cementation of dual mobility cup in well positioned existing acetabular cup) in two THA (3%) (Table 2).The cementless Symbol® DMC consists of a monoblock Co-Cr metal shell that is double coated with porous titanium alloy plasma spray and hydroxyapatite at the osseointegration surface without additional screwed fixation [17]. The cemented version of the Symbol® DMC was specifically designed for cementation with peripheral radial and concentric circumferential grooves for cement interdigitation [18]. In both component revisions, a cementless modular tapered fluted stem was systematically used for femoral reconstruction with a Restoration Cone-Conical® stem (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) in seven cases (33%) and a Revision Stem® (Lima Corporate, Udine, Italy) in 14 (66%; Table 2).
Evaluation
Operative and in-hospital reports were analyzed. Intra-operative blood loss was calculated from fluid accumulation in the suction bottle after subtracting the irrigation fluid and by weighing blood absorbed by surgical gauze. Intraoperative complications were systematically recorded and analyzed.
Patients returned for postoperative follow-up visits at three months, six months, one year, and annually thereafter, where they underwent a physical examination, with clinical outcomes evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) [19]. Plain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the pelvis and affected hip were obtained and analyzed to evaluate implant fixation using the same criteria as described above [15, 16]. Postoperative complications, dislocation reoperation, and re-revision were collected through retrospective chart review.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The comparison of continuous and quantitative variables between the two groups was performed using two-sample t-tests, and the comparison of qualitative variables between the two groups was performed using Fisher’s exact tests. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 22 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) with a level of significance set at p < 0.05.
Results
Outcome, complications, and re-revisions
The average follow-up was six ± 1.5 years (range: 4–14 years). The mean preoperative HHS was 74 ± 19 (r: 22.6–92.6). Postoperatively, HHS improved for all patients during follow-up and was 76.5 ± 16.5(range: 40–88.9) at three months, 87.8 ± nine (range: 41–92.6) at six months, and 92 ± nine (range: 63.5–95.8) (p = 0.004) at the last follow-up.
Early postoperative complications occurred after 11 revision THA (17%), three hips in complete revision group and eight with acetabular revision and only six (9%) required re-revision; two in complete group and four in acetabular group. Dislocation occurred after five revision THA (8%). Three of the dislocation events (6.2%) were a unique occurring at four ± one weeks (SD:1.4) after surgery and managed by closed reduction without recurrence at latest follow-up. All these cases occurred in bipolar revision. However, recurrent dislocation occurred in two THA (acetabular revision only cases) and required re-revision with re-orientation of a cementless DMC that was initially mal-positioned in retroversion in one revision THA, and with conversion to a constrained acetabular component Lefèvre (Lépine Groupe, Genay, France) cemented in a Ganz reinforcement device in one revision THA for the reason of severe hip abductor deficiency due to previous ARMD debridement (Fig. 2). Early periprosthetic joint infection occurred after three revision THA (5%) at seven ± five weeks. Two of these three infections required re-revision with a two-stage procedure (1 of each groups). The last one (acetabular revision) was managed with re-operation for DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention).
Early aseptic loosening occurred after two revision THA (one of each group) (3%) with acetabular reconstruction performed with a cementless DMC and required re-revision at five ± one weeks: one with a cup-cage construct (TMARS associated with Bursch-Schneider and cemented DMC) and the other with a Ganz reinforcement device associated with a cemented DMC. We acknowledge than these two failures of cementless fixation for the DMC with early aseptic loosening could be considered as technical errors related to the implantation of a cementless DMC in a case of non-diagnosed pelvic discontinuity and a case associated with sclerotic acetabular bone that was not prone for cementless fixation (Fig. 3) (Table 3).
In addition, periprosthetic femoral fractures occurred four and five years after two revision THA (3%) due a fall leading to femoral revision for a Vancouver B2 fracture and a re-operation for plate fixation for a Vancouver B1 fracture. No periprosthetic fracture of the acetabulum was observed.
Surgical procedure
The mean operative time was 120 ± 104 min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 600 ± 1200 ml. Intraoperative complications occurred during nine revision THA (13%). The most frequent intraoperative complications were related to insufficiency fractures related to ARMD-related osteolysis. There were five greater trochanteric fractures that were treated with a Dall-miles plate and cable fixation and three posterior acetabular wall fractures that were treated with plate fixation in addition to a Ganz reinforcement device.
Discussion
Revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings is a challenging procedure potentially associated with high rates of complications and re-revisions, particularly in the context of ARMD [7, 20]. ARMD affects both the quality and quantity of bone and soft tissues surrounding the hip with abductor mechanism deficiency, which can potentially pose challenges for acetabular reconstruction during revision THA. Previous studies by Munro et al. [21] and Crawford et al. [5] reported high overall re-revision rates, up to 38%, following revision THA for ARMD. In our study, re-revision rate was 9%, while data from national registries describe an overall rate of re-revision ranging from 11 to 36% [22,23,24].
The main causes of re-revision were dislocation, aseptic loosening, and infection. However, to date, no study has specifically dedicated to the evaluate the outcomes of revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with acetabular reconstruction using DMC [9, 11]. The most significant finding of this study was that DMC for revision of failed MoM bearings associated with ARMD effectively reduced the occurrence of dislocation and ensured a stable acetabular reconstruction, with low rates of aseptic loosening observed at the six year follow-up, [3, 21, 25]. However, even lower than the rates of up to 20% reported in previous study evaluating acetabular reconstruction with conventional constructs, dislocation remains a concern in our series with a rate of 8%, particularly in revision THA associated with severe soft tissue damage and hip abductor deficiency related to ARMD [26,27,28].
In our study, five patients (8%) experienced dislocation. Among them, two patients (3%) required re-revision due to recurrent instability for the reasons of abductor mechanism deficiency and malposition of the cup in retroversion. In literature, Borton et al. demonstrated dislocation rates of 11% and a re-revision rate of 33% when performed the acetabular reconstruction with conventional single mobility bearings such as ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, or metal-on-polyethylene bearings [25]. These findings are consistent with the results reported by Grammatopoulos et al. with dislocation rate of 18%, and Bonner et al. and Jennings et al. with dislocation rates of 15% and 22%, respectively [20, 29, 30]. The effectiveness of the dual mobility cup constructs was further emphasized by Klemt et al. and Colacchio et al., reporting no re-revisions and one revision for recurrent instability; respectively [28, 31]. However, it is worth noting that in cases of severe hip abductor deficiency, there may be limitations to the use of a dual mobility construct. In such instances, Rahman et al. utilized a constrained liner systematically to decrease the risk of dislocation, and their study demonstrated no instability during the follow-up period [27]. Despite a 3% re-revision rate for persistent instability, our findings support the advantages of the dual mobility cup construct over single mobility constructs in terms of instability prevention. However, in cases of severe hip abductor deficiency, the use of a constrained liner might be a preferred option.
Aseptic loosening of the cup is another common complication, particularly when using conventional coatings. In our study, two early aseptic loosening of the cup (3%) were reported with cementless dual mobility cup. They were related to a technical error related to an unrecognized acetabular bone defect. Munro et al. reported aseptic loosening rate of 12% by using cementless cup and non-osseointegration during the follow up, leading to re-revision. Similar findings were reported by Borton et al., who reported a 25% rate of aseptic loosening with cementless cup [24]. In contrast, acetabular component with highly porous coating, some authors have shown no re-revisions or very low rates (2.2%) when using ultraporous cups [5, 22]. In our study, no cases of aseptic loosening were observed when using a cemented cup in bony acetabulum or with the use of a supportive reinforcement ring. Furthermore, Matharu et al. and Liddle et al. have suggested the use of a reinforcement ring with a cemented cup to decrease the risk of aseptic loosening, especially in elderly patients or cases with severe bone defects [28, 29].
Prosthetic joint infection is also a significant concern following MoM revision for ARMD. Local inflammation and soft tissue damage and/or necrosis can increase the risk of prosthetic joint infection [26]. In our study, we observed early infections that resulted in re-revision or re-operation in three cases (4.6%). Our results were in accordance with periprosthetic infection rates ranging from 6 to 9% previously reported in literature [30,31,32].
Finally, ARMD causes increased bony fragility due to pseudotumor and bony cyst formation [5, 32]. Additionally, revision THA, regardless of the cause, is associated with an increased risk of fracture [33]. In our series, we observed intraoperative periprosthetic fragility fractures in 8 hips (12.5%), including femoral and acetabular posterior wall fractures, which required direct osteosynthesis and/or the use of a reinforcement ring.
Our study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, this study was retrospective without control group, which limits our ability to compare the outcomes with alternative options for acetabular reconstruction, such as large heads or constrained acetabular components. Additionally, this study has a relatively mid-term follow-up period and includes a limited cohort of patients, although it should be noted that this cohort was continuous and represented the largest group specifically evaluating acetabular reconstruction with DMC in the context of revision THA for this specific indication. Moreover, all procedures were performed in a referral centre by a surgical team experienced in complex revision THA, which may affect the generalizability of the results to other settings with different patient populations and surgical expertise. Therefore, future studies with larger patient cohorts, longer follow-up periods, consideration of alternative components for acetabular reconstruction, and evaluation of various surgical teams' experiences are needed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the outcomes in this specific context.
Conclusion
Revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings is a complex procedure that can be associated with higher rates of complications and re-revisions, especially related to instability, aseptic loosening, and infection. This is particularly challenging when managing of ARMD that could result in significant bone loss and soft tissue damage. However, the use of dual mobility constructs (DMC) demonstrated effectiveness in addressing these challenges by providing a stable acetabular reconstruction with both cementless and cemented fixation options while reducing the risk of instability. It is important to note that dislocation remains a concern in these specific THA revisions, particularly in cases where there is hip abductor deficiency associated with ARMD. Alternative options such as constrained acetabular components should be carefully considered in those cases.
Data availability
All the data and material used for this study were saved in an anonymized file folder and available upon request.
References
Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW et al (2012) Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet Lond Engl 380:1759–1766. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60989-1
Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E et al (2009) The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1614–1620. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01220
de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN et al (2011) Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:2287–2293. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01727
Levy YD, Ezzet KA (2013) Poor short term outcome with a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.005
Crawford DA, Adams JB, Morris MJ et al (2019) Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: midterm outcomes of 203 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty 34:1755–1760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.019
Laaksonen I, Donahue GS, Madanat R et al (2017) Outcomes of the recalled articular surface replacement metal-on-metal hip implant system: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 32:341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.060
Matharu GS, Pandit HG, Murray DW (2017) Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision. Clin Orthop 475:304–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4882-4
Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop 471:965–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2639-2
Cuthbert R, Wong J, Mitchell P, Kumar Jaiswal P (2019) Dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: current concepts. EFORT Open Rev 4:640–646. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180089
Darrith B, Courtney PM, Della Valle CJ (2018) Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty a systematic review of the literature. Bone Jt J 100:B:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0462.R1
Blakeney WG, Epinette J-A, Vendittoli P-A (2019) Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: should everyone get one? EFORT Open Rev 4:541–547. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180045
Anderson H, Toms AP, Cahir JG et al (2011) Grading the severity of soft tissue changes associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements: reliability of an MR grading system. Skeletal Radiol 40:303–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1000-7
Reiner T, Do TD, Klotz MC et al (2017) MRI findings in patients after small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. J Bone Jt Surg 99:1540–1546. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01021
Guyen O, Tissot C (2016) Patients with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management of complications. Rev Med Suisse 12:2156–2163
Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128
Paprosky WG, Bradford MS, Younger TI (1994) Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov 79:285–291
Schneider L, Châtain F, Estour G et al (2021) Total hip arthroplasty using a hemispherical uncemented dual-mobility cup results in satisfactory clinical outcomes and no dislocations at 2 years. Arthroplasty Today 9:93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.017
Wegrzyn J, Saugy C-A, Guyen O, Antoniadis A (2020) Cementation of a dual mobility cup into an existing well-fixed metal shell: a reliable option to manage wear-related recurrent dislocation in patients with high surgical risk. J Arthroplasty 35:2561–2566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.001
Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755
Grammatopoulos G, Grammatopolous G, Pandit H et al (2009) Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B8.22562
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 472:523–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2979-6
Pijls BG, Meessen JMTA, Tucker K et al (2019) MoM total hip replacements in Europe: a NORE report. EFORT Open Rev 4:423–429. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180078
Jelsma J, Van Kuijk SMJ, Spekenbrink-Spooren A et al (2021) Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142:4025–4032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04257-5
Wong JM-L, Liu Y-L, Graves S, De Steiger R (2015) What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop 473:3458–3464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4215-z
Borton ZM, Mumith AS, Nicholls AJ et al (2019) The outcome of revision surgery for failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34:1749–1754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.067
Grammatopoulos G, Munemoto M, Inagaki Y et al (2016) The diagnosis of infection in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 31:2569–2573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.064
Rahman WA, Amenábar T, Hetaimish BM et al (2016) Outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty in management of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:2559–2563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.033
Klemt C, Smith EJ, Oganesyan R et al (2020) Outcome of dual mobility constructs for adverse local tissue reaction associated abductor deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 35:3686–3691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.043
Bonner B, Arauz P, Klemt C, Kwon Y-M (2020) Outcome of re-revision surgery for adverse local tissue reaction in metal-on-polyethylene and metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 35:S284–S288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.006
Jennings JM, White S, Martin JR et al (2019) Revisions of modular metal-on-metal THA have a high risk of early complications. Clin Orthop 477:344–350. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000363
Colacchio ND, Wooten CJ, Martin JR et al (2020) Dual mobility for monoblock metal-on-metal revision-is it safe? J Arthroplasty 35:508–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.09.028
Liddle AD, Satchithananda K, Henckel J et al (2013) Revision of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in a tertiary center: a prospective study of 39 hips with between 1 and 4 years of follow-up. Acta Orthop 84:237–245. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.797313
Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR (2011) The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):96–101. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.25087
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne Open access funding as provided by University of Lausanne.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All the authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; have given fnal approval of the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study, and Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before initiating this study (CER-VD #2019–02,172).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Meriem, S., Antoniadis, A., Palazzuolo, M. et al. The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 48, 719–727 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06017-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06017-z