Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years. Using the database of
a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single
design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to examine the results of the acetabular
distraction technique in achieving implantation of a stable construct,
obtaining biological fixation, and producing healing of chronic
pelvic discontinuity at revision total hip arthroplasty. We identified 32 patients treated between 2006 and 2013 who underwent
acetabular revision for a chronic pelvic discontinuity using acetabular
distraction, and who were radiographically evaluated at a mean of
62 months (25 to 160). Of these patients, 28 (87.5%) were female.
The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years (44 to 86). The patients
represented a continuous series drawn from two institutions that
adhered to an identical operative technique.Aims
Patients and Methods
The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly
used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone
loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over
a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced
and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the
hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone
structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone
loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited
bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased
risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic
dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit,
and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with
<
50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results
have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because
of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most
common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence
of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results,
a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly
cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent
the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions. Cite this article:
Migration of the acetabular component may give rise to oval-shaped bone defects in the acetabulum. The oblong implant is designed to fill these defects and achieve a stable cementless anchorage with no significant bone loss. We prospectively reviewed 133 oblong long oblique revision components at a mean follow-up of 9.74 years (0.6 to 14). All had been used in revisions for defects of type IIB to IIIB according to Paprosky. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 11 cases (8.3%) and deep infection in seven (5.3%). The probability of implant survival over a 12-year follow-up estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method gave a survival rate of 0.85% respectively 0.90% when deep infection was excluded as the endpoint. Our study supports the use of these components in defects from IIB to IIIA. The main precondition for success is direct contact of more than half of the surface of the implant with the host acetabular bone.
