Aims

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications.

The relative advantages and disadvantages of two-stage versus one-stage management of infected total hip arthroplasties are the current subject of intense debate. To understand the merits of each approach detailed information on the short and, importantly, longer-term outcomes of each must be known. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results of two-stage exchange arthroplasty for THAs in one of the largest series to date.

We identified 331 infected THAs treated with a two-stage exchange arthroplasty between 1993 and 2021 at a single institution. Patients were excluded if they had prior treatment for infection. Mean age at reimplantation was 66 years, 38% were female, and mean BMI was 30 kg/m². PJI diagnosis was based on the 2011 MSIS criteria. A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized. Mean follow up was 8 years.

The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 7% at 1 year and 11% at 5 and 10 years. Factors predictive of reinfection included BMI>30 kg/m² (HR 2; p=0.049), and need for a spacer exchange (HR 3.2; p=0.006). The cumulative incidence of any revision was 13% at 5 and 10 years. The cumulative incidence of aseptic revision was 3% at 1 year, 7% at 5 years, and 8% at 10 years. Dislocation occurred in 33 hips (11% at 10 years; 45% required revision). Factors predictive of dislocation were female sex (HR 2; p=0.047) and BMI<30 kg/m² (HR 3; p=0.02). The mean HHS improved from 54 to 75 at 10 years.

In this series of 331 two-stage exchange arthroplasties performed for infected hips, we found a low aseptic revision rate (8%) and a low rate of reinfection (11%) at 10 years. These long-term mechanical and infection data must be kept in mind when considering a paradigm shift to one-stage exchanges.

Level of Evidence: Level III

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation.

We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m², and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.

The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06).

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation.

Level of Evidence: IV