Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

01-02-2018 | Original Article • HIP - TRAUMA

The benefit of the systematic revision of the acetabular implant in favor of a dual mobility articulation during the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a 49 cases prospective comparative study

Authors: A. Perrin, M. Saab, S. Putman, K. Benad, E. Drumez, C. Chantelot

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Introduction

The SOFCOT symposium (2005) on periprosthetic fractures of the femur (PFFs) highlighted a high rate of dislocation (15.6% at 6 months) after change of prosthesis. So far, no study has ever proved the benefit of dual-mobility articulation during PFFs revisions. We conducted a comparative study on two prospective cohorts in order to (1) assess the influence of systematic acetabular revision in favor of a double mobility on dislocation rate (2) and in order to evaluate the rate of morbidity associated with this extra surgical procedure.

Hypothesis

A systematic replacement of the cup in favor of a dual-mobility articulation enables to reduce the dislocation rate in PFFs revisions without increasing morbidity.

Methodology

We compared two prospective multicenter cohorts over a year (2005 and 2015) using the same methodology. Any fracture around hip prosthesis which occurred 3 months at least after surgery was included. Data collection was clinical and radiological on preoperative, intraoperative and 6 months after surgery. The 2015 “bipolar” group (n = 24) included patients who had a bipolar revision (both femoral and dual-mobility articulation). The 2005 “unipolar” group (n = 25) included patients who had only a femoral implant revision. Patients were comparable by age (p = 0.36), sex (p = 0.91), ASA score (p = 0.36), history of prosthetic revision (p = 1.00), Katz score (p = 0.50) and the type of fracture according to the Vancouver classification (p = 0.55).

Results

There was a 4% rate of dislocation in the “bipolar group” while there was 21% rate of dislocation in the “unipolar group” (8% of recurrent dislocation) (p = 0.19). The rate of all-cause complications 6 months after surgery was not significantly different (p = 0.07): 12.5% in the 2015 “bipolar” cohort (one dislocation, one non-symptomatic cup migration and one pseudarthrosis of the major trochanter) versus 35% in the “unipolar” cohort (5 dislocations, 1 major trochanter fracture and 1 femur pseudarthrosis, 1 secondary displacement associated with a superficial infection). The surgical revision after 6 months was not significantly different (1/23 or 4% vs. 4/25 or 16%, p = 0.35).

Conclusion

We confirm the low rate of dislocations after fitting a dual-mobility cup in case of revision of the femoral side in case of periprosthetic femoral fracture, as well as the need for additional cases to be carried out upon further studies to significantly confirm the interest of preventing instability after femoral revision.

Laffargue P, Laffargue P, Soenen M, Pinoit Y, Migaud H (2006) Periprosthetic fractures around total hip and knee arthroplasty. Mortality, morbidity and prognostic factors of periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty: multicentric prospective assessment of 115 cases. Rev Chir Orthop 92(5 Suppl):2S64–2S69PubMed

Girard J, Kern G, Migaud H, Delaunay C, Ramdane N, Hamadouche M (2013) Primary total hip arthroplasty revision due to dislocation: prospective French multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:549–553CrossRefPubMed

Bouchet R, Mercier N, Saragaglia D (2011) Posterior approach and dislocation rate: a 213 total hip replacements case-control study comparing the dual mobility cup with a conventional 28-mm metal head/polyethylene prosthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(1):2–7CrossRefPubMed

Stulberg SD (2010) Dual mobility for chronic hip instability: a solution option. Orthopedics 33:637PubMed

Ehlinger M, Delaunay C, Karoubi M, Bonnomet F, Ramdane N, Hamadouche M (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 100:657–662CrossRefPubMed

Bégué T, Thomazeau H (2006) Periprosthetic fractures around total hip and knee arthroplasty. Introduction and study objectives. Rev Chir Orthop 92(5 Suppl):2S29–2S96

Dixon J (1995) Consistency of the ASA classification. Anaesthesia 50:826CrossRefPubMed

Charnley J (2012) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip: theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, p 383

Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMed

10.

Younger AS, Dunwoody J, Duncan CP (1998) Periprosthetic hip and knee fractures: the scope of the problem. Instr Course Lect 47:251–256PubMed

11.

Adolphson P, Jonsson U, Kalén R (1987) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 106:353–357CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fredin HO, Lindberg H, Carlsson AS (1987) Femoral fracture following hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 58:20–22CrossRefPubMed

13.

Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Munuera L, Gil-Garay E (1992) Femoral shaft fractures after cemented total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 16:97–100CrossRefPubMed

14.

Soenen M, Lautridou C, Lebel B, Hulet C, Brilhault J, Migaud H, May O, Laffargue P, Burdin P (2006) Periprosthetic fractures around total hip and knee arthroplasty. Review of the literature. Rev Chir Orthop 92(5 Suppl):2S44–2S51PubMed

15.

Bonnomet F, Ehlinger M, Molina V, Thomazeau H (2006) Periprosthetic fractures around total hip and knee arthroplasty. Classification of femoral fractures on a prosthetic hip. Rev Chir Orthop 92(5 Suppl):2S51–2S56PubMed

16.

Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplast 20:857–865CrossRef

17.

Girard J, Herent S, Combes A, Pinoit Y, Soenen M, Laffargue P, Migaud H (2008) Metal- on-metal hip replacement using Metasul cups cemented into Muller reinforcement rings after a mean 5-year (3–8) follow-up: improvement of acetabular fixation by comparing with direct cementation to bone. Rev Chir Orthop 94:346–353PubMed

18.

Wegrzyn J, Pibarot V, Jacquel A, Carret JP, Béjui-Hugues J, Guyen O (2014) Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull cross-plate, structural allograft and cemented dual-mobility cup in revision THA at a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 29:432–437CrossRef

19.

Ebramzadeh E, Beaulé PE, Culwell JL, Amstutz HC (2004) Fixation strength of an all- metal acetabular component cemented into an acetabular shell: a biomechanical analysis. J Arthroplast 19:45–49

20.

Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2012) Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation: 228 patients from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 83:566–571CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Chen FS, Di Cesare PE, Kale AA, Lee JF, Frankel VH, Stuchin SA, Zuckerman JD (1998) Results of cemented metal-backed acetabular components: a 10-year-average follow-up study. J Arthroplast 13(8):867–873CrossRef

22.

Haen TX, Lonjon G, Vandenbussche E (2015) Can cemented dual-mobility cups be used without a reinforcement device in cases of mild acetabular bone stock alteration in total hip arthroplasty? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 10:923–927CrossRef

Title: The benefit of the systematic revision of the acetabular implant in favor of a dual mobility articulation during the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a 49 cases prospective comparative study
Authors: A. Perrin
M. Saab
S. Putman
K. Benad
E. Drumez
C. Chantelot
Publication date: 01-02-2018
Publisher: Springer Paris
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2037-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The benefit of the systematic revision of the acetabular implant in favor of a dual mobility articulation during the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a 49 cases prospective comparative study

Abstract

Introduction

Hypothesis

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Hypothesis

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Midlife changes of health-related quality of life in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients who underwent spinal fusion during adolescence

Reply to: Walley KC, Appleton PT, Rodriguez EK (2017): Comparison of outcomes of operative versus non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures in the elderly and severely comorbid patient, Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27(5):689–694

Alexander R. Vaccaro and Todd J. Albert (Eds.): Spine surgery

Study of lesions of the lumbar endplate based on the stage of maturation of the lumbar vertebral body: the relationship between skeletal maturity and chronological age

Does time of surgery and complication have any correlation in the management of hip fracture in elderly and can early surgery affect the outcome?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct anterior approach for hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture