CONTRIBUTION OF DOUBLE-MOBILITY FOR PROSTHESIS REVISION FOR HIP INSTABILITY

Abstract

Purpose of the study: An unstable hip prosthesis is a therapeutic challenge. The prevalence of revision is 5 to 26.6% in the literature. We evaluated the contribution of double-mobility implants for revisions of unstable hip implants.

Material and methods: This series was composed of 45 patients who underwent revision between January 2000 and December 2003 for hip instability (44 dislocations, 1 subluxation). The same implant was used for all patients, either for the first-intention version (press-fit or cemented), or for the revision version (press-fit). For certain patients, the first-intention implant was cemented in an armature. The series included 28 females and 17 males, mean age 66.5 years (range 36–48 years). The initial diagnosis was osteoarthritis in 34 cases (76%), dysplasia in seven (16%), osteonecrosis in two (4%), Paget’s disease in one (2%) and rheumatoid disease in one (2%). The patients had had 2.8 dislocations on average (range 1 – 10). Time from first dislocation to the first-intention operation was 45.6 months (range 15 days – 20 years). Mean time from the first-intention operation to revision was 64.3 months (range 3 weeks – 20 years). Risk factors for instability were repeated hip surgery (> 3 operations) for 13 patients, wear for seven, nonunion of the greater trochanter for five, neurological and cognitive impairment in five, and malposition in three.

Results: Mean follow-up was 25.2 months. None of the patients were lost to follow-up. Two patients died late after the operation. Among the complications observed, there were: two cases of recurrent dislocation, one case of subluxation, two cases of infection (one with favorable outcome after surgical cleaning and antibiotics the other followed by patient death), two cases of deep vein thrombosis, one case of popliteal paresia with favorable outcome, one case of delirium tremens. Surveillance was the therapeutic option for the patient with subluxation. For patients with dislocation, revision surgery was performed using the same implant. For one of these patients, the dislocation occurred following early loosening.

Conclusion: Use of double-mobility implants for prosthetic revision undertaken because of prosthesis instability provides encouraging results, with a rate of dislocation (4%) close to that observed with first-intention implants.