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: Influence of dual-mobility acetabular implants on revision and survivorship of cup and Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs in aseptic acetabular loosening.
    Author: Bozon O, Dagneaux L, Sanchez T, Gaillard F, Hamoui M, Canovas F.
    Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2022 Apr; 108(2):103071. PubMed ID: 34560312.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Dual-mobility (DM) acetabular implants have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent postoperative instability, with excellent mid-term survivorship. However, few comparative studies assessed the long-term outcomes of DM implants used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular revision. The present study aimed to compare long-term survivorship, dislocation rates and clinical outcome between DM acetabular implants and conventional single-bearing (SB) implants when cemented in a reinforcement ring. HYPOTHESIS: Dual-mobility implants are associated with equivalent survivorship and lower dislocation rates than SB implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study included 60 revision THAs for aseptic loosening using a Kerboull-type reinforcement ring, and finally included 2 groups of 23 patients with either DM or SB cemented acetabular implants after matching for age, gender, BMI and preoperative Harris hip score. Mean follow-up was 10 years (range, 6-14 years). Acetabular implant survivorship, dislocation rate and radiographic failure incidence (>5mm migration, progressive radiolucency, graft non-integration, reinforcement ring breakage) were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes used the Harris hip score, the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score and the Parker score. RESULTS: Survivorship free of aseptic acetabular re-revision was 89% at 10 years, with no significant difference between DM and SB (91% and 86%, respectively; p=0.54). Single-bearing implants showed a hazard ratio for dislocation of 6.7 (95% CI, 1.5-29.6; p=0.01) compared to DM implants. There were no significant differences in radiologic failure (10-year survivorship 72% and 64%, respectively; p=0.88) or functional scores. DISCUSSION: The present study confirmed the impact of dual-mobility implants in reducing long-term dislocation risk when used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular aseptic revision, with no increased risk of re-revision compared to conventional single-bearing implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, comparative retrospective study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]