Introduction. Reoperations to manage unstable total hip arthroplasty are reported with a high failure rate. The
Introduction. The
BACKGROUND PURPOSES. dislocation is a classical complication in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision. Cup fixation is the second concern. Since 1998 we routinely use cementless
Treatment of recurrent dislocation: approximately: 1/3 of failures (probably higher in the absence of a clear curable cause). In the US: most popular treatment option: constrained liners with high redislocation and loosening rates in most reports. Several interfaces leading to various modes of failures. In Europe:
Introduction. Polyethylene (PE) wear is clearly linked to total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure, leading to osteolysis and decreasing survivorship rates.
Introduction. Upper femoral fractures include intra and extra-capsular fracture (ECF). For intra-capsular fracture (ICF), hemi-arthroplasty (HA) is the most commonly used treatment. Interest in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is growing because THA yields less revision (4% versus 7%) associated to better functional results despite higher dislocation rate (9% versus 3%). Regarding ECF, internal fixation is the reference treatment. THA could represent a relevant alternative. This study evaluates the efficiency of THA using
Mid and long-term follow-up of Charnley total hip arthroplasty (THA) demonstrated good functional results with 85% survivorship at 25-year follow-up. However dislocation still remains an unsolved problem. Dislocation may occur all along the patient and implant life. The aim of this study is to answer the question: does
Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. The first such device was introduced for primary total hip arthroplasty by Bousquet in the 1970s, thus, the “French connection”. Dual mobility components have been released for use in North America over the past five years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series and the Swedish hip registry have shown satisfactory results for this indication at short- to medium-term follow-up times. However, there are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intraprosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data. These components are an important option in the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are more recent concerns of possible iliopsoas tendinitis, elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intraprosthetic dislocation following attempted closed reduction. However, a dual mobility component may now be the preferred solution in revision surgery for recurrent hip dislocation.
INTRODUCTION. THA as primary treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly still remains a prominent concern. Overall dislocation rate after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is reported form 1∼5%. But, it is quiet different in situation of femur neck fracture in elderly. The THA is associated with higher rates of dislocation (8%∼11%) in eldery compared to hemiarthroplasty even though THA showed better clinical and functional scores. Recently resurgence about THA using DMC comes after improvement of manufacturing technology. The aim of this prospective multicenter study is to assess the rates of dislocation and re-operation for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly with THA with
Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility will be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. At least one center reports that dual mobility outperforms 40mm femoral heads in revision arthroplasty. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, total hips, unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are concerns of elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. Total hip surgeons no longer cement Charnley acetabular components, use conventional polyethylene, autologous blood donation, or a drain; now constrained components join these obsolete techniques! In 2017, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, is the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation.
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). We have considered constrained liners in some of these cases. However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation situation specifically it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 10–15% have been reported following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient, constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate- term follow-up. Hence in these situations tripolar constrained liners remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well- positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes, score liner in spider web configuration, all one or two millimeters of cement mantle Constrained Dual Mobility Liner For Dislocation: 56 Hips, 10 yr average f/u, 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening For Difficult Revisions:101 hips, 10 yr average f/u, 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips, 3.6 yr average f/u (2–10 years), 2 of 31 failuresResults
The dual mobility design concept for acetabular liners is intended to reduce the risk of dislocation and increase range of motion, but the wear pattern of this design is unclear and may have implications in implant fixation. Additionally, the solid back cups do not have the option for supplementary screw fixation, providing an additional smooth articulating surface for the liner to move against. The objective of this study was to assess cup fixation by measuring implant migration. A secondary objective was to evaluate the mobile bearing motion after rotating the hip. Thirty subjects were recruited in a consecutive series prospective study and received Anatomic Dual Mobility (Stryker Orthopedics) uncemented acetabular components with mobile bearing polyethylene liners through a direct lateral approach. Femoral stems were cemented (Exeter) or uncemented (Accolade, Stryker Orthopedics). The femur, acetabulum, and non-articulating surface of the polyethylene liner were marked with tantalum beads. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) exams were performed post-operatively and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, months, and at 1 year. At the 1 year exam, a frog leg RSA exam was performed to assess the mobility of the cup compared to its position during a supine exam.Introduction
Methods
Dual mobility is a French concept that appeared in the 1970s and was initially intended to reduce dislocation rates. In recent years, this concept has evolved with new HA titanium spray coatings, new external macrostructures, and better-quality polyethylene. This has allowed to extend the indications to younger and therefore active populations. The objective of our work is to analyze at least 10 years a homogeneous and continuous series of 170 primary total hip replacements associating a latest generation Novae Sunfit. ®.
The main causes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions are loosening and instability. Use of a
Introduction. Revision procedures for unstable total hip arthroplasty have been reported with high failure rates. Many options have been proposed in such challenging cases, including dual mobility. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical and radiologic features associated with the
Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability is well documented to be more common in specific demographic groups. We report a retrospective analysis of the use of a dual mobility implant for primary hip replacements in selected patients at risk for dislocation. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical and radiologic features associated with the
Introduction. The published results of the use of a
Introduction. Revision surgery is generally recommended for recurrent dislocation following Total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, dislocation following revision THA continues to remain a problem with further dislocation rates upto 28% quoted in literature. We present early results of one of the largest series in U.K. using dual mobility cemented acetabular cup for recurrent hip dislocation. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated 40 patients where revision of hip replacement was performed using cemented dual mobility acetabular prosthesis for recurrent dislocations from March 2006 till August 2009 at our district general hospital by a single surgeon (senior author). The series comprised of 13 men and 27 females with average age of 73.4 years (49-92). The mean follow-up period was 23 months. (36 months –6 months). All the hips that were revised had 3 or more dislocations, some them more than 10 times. The cause of dislocation was multifactorial in majority of cases including acetabular component malpositioning mainly due to loosening and wear. A cemented
Introduction. Few studies are published about total hip arthroplasties (THA) in Parkinson's disease as it is often considered as a contraindication for hip replacement. THA for fracture is reported as a high complication rate surgery. Regarding bone quality these cases are assimilated to elderly patients and cemented implants are generally preferred. However, due to the improved length and quality of life, we face more potential indications for joint replacement. The aim of this study is to report our experience of cementless dual mobility implants for primary THAs for osteoarthrosis and THA revisions focusing on the risks and benefits of surgery. Material and methods. 65 THA were performed in 59 patients (34 men, 25 women, mean age 73 years, 55–79). Mean latest follow-up was 8,3 years (4–14). Indications were 42 primary THA (osteoarthrosis) and 21 revisions (11 recurrent dislocation, 6 acetabular PE wear, 4 femoral loosening). Surgical approach was always antero-lateral. All patients were implanted with the same