These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is there a problem with modular dual mobility acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up?
    Author: Hernandez NM, Hinton ZW, Wu CJ, Lachiewicz PF, Ryan SP, Wellman SS.
    Journal: Bone Joint J; 2021 Jul; 103-B(7 Supple B):66-72. PubMed ID: 34192910.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner. CONCLUSION: When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66-72.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]