Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Jean-Louis Prudhon, Romain Desmarchelier, Moussa Hamadouche, Christian Delaunay, Régis Verdier, The SoFCOT

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

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.
Literature
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):128–133CrossRefPubMed
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):511–518CrossRefPubMed
6.
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):927–932CrossRefPubMed
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):1125–1129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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):849–858CrossRefPubMed
10.
Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS (2012) The use of dual-mobility components in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20(8):481–486CrossRefPubMed
11.
Plummer DR, Haughom BD, la Valle CJ (2014) Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 45(1):1–8CrossRef
12.
13.
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):3048–3053CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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):225–230CrossRefPubMed
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):758–764CrossRef
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):3863–3869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Dripps RD (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111
19.
D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A(3):451–475CrossRefPubMed
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):256–266CrossRefPubMed
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, e95300CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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):82–89CrossRefPubMed
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):657–662CrossRefPubMed
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):1251–1258CrossRefPubMed
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 10:20130678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Fessy MH (2010) La double mobilité. Rev Chir Orthop 96(10):891–898
28.
Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(3):965–970CrossRefPubMed
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):249–255CrossRefPubMed
30.
Prudhon JL (2011) Dual-mobility cup and cemented femoral component: 6 year follow-up results. Hip Int 21(6):713–717CrossRefPubMed
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):241–248CrossRefPubMed
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):1323–1328CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Jean-Louis Prudhon
Romain Desmarchelier
Moussa Hamadouche
Christian Delaunay
Régis Verdier
The SoFCOT
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3064-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

International Orthopaedics 3/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Five to thirteen year results of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation

Original Paper

In total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach, a dual-mobility cup prevents dislocation as effectively in hip fracture as in osteoarthritis

Original Paper

Equivalent wear performance of dual mobility bearing compared with standard bearing in total hip arthroplasty: in vitro study

Editorial

Dual-mobility cup: a new French revolution

Orthopaedic Heritage

Outcomes of dual mobility cups in a young Middle Eastern population and its influence on life style

Original Paper

Highly crosslinked polyethylene: a safe alternative to conventional polyethylene for dual mobility cup mobile component. A biomechanical validation