No abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons because of its higher revision rate compare with the total knee arthroplasty. The hypothesis of this work is that the progression of osteoarthritis in unicompartmental knee prostheses is the natural history of the degenerative disease and a reason for reoperation. Most international joint registries consider this fact as a failure of the implant and a cause of revision. Annual joint registries were searched for progression of osteoarthritis in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and reasons for their revisions. Current data from registries for unicompartmental knee indicate that the revision rate of such prostheses is overestimated. Considering osteoarthritis progression as the development of the existing disease and not as a failure of the implant, revision rate will be reduced. Registries, reports, and studies are needed to evaluate the progression of osteoarthritis as a cause of reoperation instead of a reason for revision, reducing unicompartmental revision rate and encouraging surgeons to implant more of them.

Revision of large-diameter, monoblock acetabular components for both hip resurfacing arthroplasty and metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to a high amount of complications. For this reason, performing a limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component exchange has been proposed in order to limit these complications. Although DM bearing offers an easy solution avoiding the intraoperative and time-associated complications, concern about polyethylene wear and stability remains due to the difference regarding the design, the coverage angle and the clearance of the two implants. In order to evaluate the performance of this new solution with the new material to prevent the possibility of failure it is essential to conduct a review of the literature A qualitative systematic review of the literature has been conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus for English and French articles between January 2000 and October 2019 was performed, with the primary objective of finding articles about dual mobility bearing coupling with large metal-on-metal cup in the case of hip revision procedure. Various combinations of the key words were used in the search strategy. Thirteen articles with DM bearing mated with MoM cup were analyzed. Of the 130 hip revisions selected, with a follow-up from 6 to 53 months, there were a total of 14 with complications (10.77%): four true dislocations (3.08%); six intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD, 4.6%), two of which presented plastic deformation and polyethylene wear; four other complications (3.08%), included a cup osteolysis, a clicking noise, a superficial infection and a periprosthetic fracture. All the mentioned true dislocations occurred during the first month while IPDs appeared during the first two years from the index revision. In conclusion, according to the literature analyzed, we can stress that the concerns and doubts about mating a DM bearing with large MoM cup cannot be dissolved. It has been pointed out that a DM bearing is not designed for a MoM cup; it is not mechanically tested on MoM cups, which presents different clearance and coverage angles. Predictable complications may occur, such as IPD, polyethylene wear and true dislocation. These complications have been reported at an even higher rate than they were in the eighties, when the first generation of DM implants were of a lower quality of polyethylene and the characteristic of the design was less optimal than modern ones.

Although total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown successful results, instability remains a major complication. In recent years, dual mobility cups (DMC) have gained interest among clinicians thanks to its low rate of dislocation and good clinical results. The main aim of this work was to describe the accuracy of data on DMC from national and regional joint registries (JRs) and the available worldwide literature. We identified topics on DMC among JRs to propose a new harmonized and standardized section for DMC with the aim to understand its surveillance over the time. We extracted survival and implant data for a separate analysis. After performing a critical exclusion process, nine JRs were considered eligible and included for final synthesis; these were the results from the available worldwide data from JRs. In our study, eight analyzed JRs reported a slight increase in DMC use in the last decade. In all the JRs evaluated and the available articles, dislocation remains one of the main reasons for revision and re-revision in hip arthroplasties. DMC is considered to be a valid construct increasingly used worldwide in primary and revision THA with the primary aim of reducing dislocation rates. Annual reports from JRs collect heterogeneous and low-quality information about outcomes and surveillance of DMC, creating a burden for clinicians to extract comparable data from different JRs. Longer follow-up and a systematic registering of DMCs with international registry harmonization are needed to monitor DMC outcomes.

No abstract