The benefit of a dual-mobility acetabular component (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the dislocation and complication rates when using a DMC compared to single-mobility (SM) acetabular component in primary elective THA using data collected at a single centre, and compare the revision rates and survival outcomes in these two groups. Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THAs using either a cementless DM or SM acetabular component were included. Indications for DMC were patients aged older than 70 years or with high risk of dislocation. All other patients received a SM acetabular component. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, patients treated for femoral neck fracture, and follow-up of less than one year. In total, 1,940 THAs were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%) and 791 SM (40.8%). The mean age was 73 years (SD 9.2) in the DMC group and 57 years (SD 12) in the SM group. Complications and revisions have been analyzed retrospectively.Aims
Methods
The benefit of dual mobility cup (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) is still controversial. This study aimed to compare 1) the complications rate, 2) the revisions rate, 3) the survival rate after monobloc DMC compared to large femoral heads (LFH) in primary THA. Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THA using cementless DMC or LFH were included. Indications for DMC were patients older than 70 years old or with high risk of dislocation. Every other patient received a LFH. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, femoral neck fracture, a follow-up of less than one year. 1,940 THA were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%), 791 LFH (40.8%). The mean age was 73 ±9.2 years old in DMC group and 57 ±12 in LFH group. The complications and the revisions have been assessed retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 41.9 months ±14 [12–134]. There were significantly fewer dislocations in DMC group (n=2; 0.17%) compared to LFH group (n=8; 1%) (p=0.019). The femoral head size had no impact on the dislocations rate in LFH group (p=0.70). The overall complication rate in DMC (n=59; 5.1%) and LFH (n=53; 6.7%) were not statistically different (p=0.21). No specific complication was attributed to the DMC. In DMC group, 18 THA (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THA in LFH group (1.9%) (p= 0.71). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The cup aseptic revision-free survival rates at 5 years were 98% in DMC group and 97.3% in LFH group (p=0.78). Monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than LFH in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of specific complications or revisions for DMC in a large cohort. Monobloc DMC can be safely used in a selected high-risk population.
Increasingly young and active patients are concerned about revision arthroplasty forcing the manufacturers to think about revision prostheses that fit to this population while meeting the indications and fitting with bone losses and ligament deficiencies. One of those industrials claims that its system allows the surgeon to rise the constraint from a posterior stabilized (PS) prostheses to a semi-constraint total stabilized (TS) prostheses without modifying the gait pattern thanks to a similar single radius design. The aim of the study was to compare gait parameters in patients receiving either PS or TS knee prostheses. Nineteen patients in each groups were prospectively collected for this study and compared between each other. All subjects were assessed with a 3D knee kinematics analysis, performed with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®). Were measured for each knees range of motion (ROM) in flexion–extension, abduction–adduction, internal–external rotation and anterior–posterior displacement.Introduction
Methods
