Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Causes for revision of dual-mobility and standard primary total hip arthroplasty

Matched case–control study based on a prospective multicenter study of two thousand and forty four implants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The causes for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are various and quite well known. The developing use of dual-mobility THA (DM-THA) seems a relevant option to decrease the risk of instability. Due to lack of long-term follow-up, this innovative retentive concept is suspected to increase the risk of polyethylene (PE) wear. the aim of the study was to analyse the causes for DM-THA revision and assess whether or not its occurrence is different from that of fixed-standard (FS) THA , particularly for aseptic loosening or wear and/or osteolysis.

Materials and methods

The SoFCOT group conducted an observational prospective multicentre study from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. Inclusion criteria comprised an exhaustive collection of 2044 first-revision THAs with 251 DM-THAs and 1793 FS-THAs. After excluding complications linked to patient factors (infection and periprosthetic fractures), we performed a matched case–control study (matching ratio 1:1) comparing two groups of 133 THAs.

Results

Revisions for aseptic loosening or osteolysis/wear were as frequent in DM-THA (58.7 %) as in FS-THA (57.1 %) (p 0.32); 7.5 % of DM-THA were revised for dislocation versus 19.5 % of FS-THA (p 0.007).

Discussion

Revision for osteolysis/wear and aseptic loosening were as frequent in DM-THA as in FS-THA; revision for dislocation was less frequent in DM-THA. This confirms the efficiency of the DM concept regarding the risk of dislocation. Causes for revision were different between groups, and revisions for dislocation were less frequent in DM-THA. Only prospective comparative studies could provide reliable information that may support broader use of the DM concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (2013) National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 10th Report

  2. (2013) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2013

  3. (2012) Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2012

  4. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F (2012) Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop 36(3):511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Verdier R (2013) Dual mobility cup: dislocation rate and survivorship at ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop 37(12):2345–2350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Philippot R, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Adam P, Farizon F (2009) 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 33(4):927–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caton JH, Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Aslanian T, Verdier R (2014) A comparative and retrospective study of three hundred and twenty primary Charnley type hip replacements with a minimum follow up of ten years to assess wether a dual mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk. Int Orthop 38(6):1125–1129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G, Chevillotte C, Carret JP, Bejui-Hugues J (2007) Unconstrained tripolar implants for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at risk for dislocation. J Arthroplasty 22(6):849–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS (2012) The use of dual-mobility components in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20(8):481–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Plummer DR, Haughom BD, la Valle CJ (2014) Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 45(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Martino I, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Sculco PK, Sculco TP (2014) Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop 5(3):180–187

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Grazioli A, Ek ET, Rudiger HA (2012) Biomechanical concept and clinical outcome of dual mobility cups. Int Orthop 36(12):2411–2418

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamadouche M, Arnould H, Bouxin B (2012) Is a cementless dual mobility socket in primary THA a reasonable option? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3048–3053

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C (2011) The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop 35(2):225–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leclercq S, Benoit JY, de Rosa JP, Tallier E, Leteurtre C, Girardin PH (2013) Evora chromium-cobalt dual mobility socket: results at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(8):758–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in france? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3863–3869

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dripps RD (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111

    Google Scholar 

  19. D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A(3):451–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Charnley J (1979) Numerical grading of clinical results. In Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Berlin, pp 20–4

  21. Devane PA, Horne JG, Martin K, Coldham G, Krause B (1997) Three-dimensional polyethylene wear of a press-fit titanium prosthesis. Factors influencing generation of polyethylene debris. J Arthroplasty 12(3):256–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu C, Qu X, Liu F, Li H, Mao Y, Zhu Z (2014) Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. PLoS One 9, e95300

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Liu S, Zhang Q, Zhang Y (2015) Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 89(2):82–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ehlinger M, Delaunay C, Karoubi M, Bonnomet F, Ramdane N, Hamadouche M, Societe francaise de chirurgie orthopedique et al (2014) Revision of primary total hip arthroplasty for peri-prosthetic fracture: a prospective epidemiological study of 249 consecutive cases in France. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(6):657–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maisongrosse P, Lepage B, Cavaignac E, Pailhe R, Reina N, Chiron P, Laffosse JM (2015) Obesity is no longer a risk factor for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with a double-mobility cup. Int Orthop 39(7):1251–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aram P, Kadirkamanathan V, Wilkinson JM (2013) Use of kernel-based Bayesian models to predict late osteolysis after hip replacement. J R Soc Interface 10:20130678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fessy MH (2010) La double mobilité. Rev Chir Orthop 96(10):891–898

    Google Scholar 

  28. Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(3):965–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lecuire F, Benareau I, Rubini J, Basso M (2004) Intra-prosthetic dislocation of the Bousquet dual mobility socket. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90(3):249–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Prudhon JL (2011) Dual-mobility cup and cemented femoral component: 6 year follow-up results. Hip Int 21(6):713–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Epinette JA (2014) Clinical outcomes, survivorship and adverse events with mobile-bearings versus fixed-bearings in hip arthroplasty-a prospective comparative Cohort study of 143 ADM versus 130 trident cups at 2 to 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 30(2):241–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Epinette JA, Beracassat R, Tracol P, Pagazani G, Vandenbussche E (2014) Are modern dual mobility cups a valuable option in reducing instability after primary hip arthroplasty, even in younger patients? J Arthroplasty 29(6):1323–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinique des Cèdres, 21, rue Albert Londre, 38432, Echirolles, France

    Jean-Louis Prudhon

  2. Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 165, chemin du Grand Revoyet, 69495, Pierre Bénite, France

    Romain Desmarchelier

  3. Hôpital Cochin, 27, rue du Faubourg-Saint Jacques, 75679, Paris Cedex 14, France

    Moussa Hamadouche

  4. Clinique de l’Yvette, 67, route Corbeil, 91160, Lonjumeau, France

    Christian Delaunay

  5. Groupe Lépine, 175 rue Jacquard, CS 50307, 69727, Genay Cedex, France

    Régis Verdier

Authors
  1. Jean-Louis Prudhon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Romain Desmarchelier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moussa Hamadouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Delaunay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Régis Verdier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The SoFCOT

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Régis Verdier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prudhon, JL., Desmarchelier, R., Hamadouche, M. et al. Causes for revision of dual-mobility and standard primary total hip arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 455–459 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3064-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3064-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation