Acetabular Reconstruction Using a Kerboull Cross-Plate, Structural Allograft and Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup in Revision THA at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Wegrzyn, Julien; Pibarot, Vincent; Jacquel, Alexandre; Carret, Jean‐Paul; Béjui-Hugues, Jacques; Guyen, Olivier

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.030

Cited by 59 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instability is among the main complications of prosthetic revision surgery [18,19,25]. The dislocation rate in our study (1.4%, 1 case) is comparable to the rates found in other studies of DMC use for revision THA [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Garbuz et al [26] reported benefits from using large-diameter heads (36 and 40 mm) to prevent instability in exchange THA, but they have the major drawback of inducing marked polyethylene wear [20].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…This value is similar to rates reported after DMC use for revision THA [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], but higher than those reported with DMCs for primary THA [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. When failure was defined as revision for non-infectious complications, 5-year survival was 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), i.e., comparable to previously reported rates of DMC survival in primary and revision THA ( Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Less is known about DMC outcomes in revision THAs performed for reasons other than recurrent dislocation [13][14][15][16][17], although these procedures carry a high risk of postoperative hip instability [18,19]. Other implant designs, such as the retentive cup and the large-diameter femoral head, decrease the risk of hip instability but are often associated with high rates of wear and loosening [20,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dual mobility cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: Dislocation rate and survival after 5 years

Simian

Chatellard

Druon

et al. 2015

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dual mobility cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: Dislocation rate and survival after 5 years

Simian

Chatellard

Druon

et al. 2015

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One pack of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement was used to cement a dual mobility liner (Modular Dual Mobility Hip Bearing System‐MDM; Stryker) into the acetabular cage. The MDM liners were cemented in approximately 20° of anteversion and 40° of abduction with equal cement distribution around the liner . A cemented femoral component was utilized in all cases, including 17 Omnifit EON femoral stems, one GMRS Proximal Femoral Replacement, and one Accolade femoral stems (Stryker Orthopaedics) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid return to function and stability with dual mobility components cemented into an acetabular reconstructive cage for large osseous defects in the setting of periacetabular metastatic disease

Plummer

Passen

Alexander

et al. 2019

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives Large acetabular defects secondary to metastatic disease frequently require extensive acetabular reconstruction. Techniques of acetabular reconstruction have been described, but no consensus for the management of these defects has been reached so far. We present our technique and patient outcomes for acetabular reconstruction by cementing a dual mobility cup into an acetabular cage. Methods We reviewed 152 total hip arthroplasties and identified 19 patients with periacetabular metastatic disease and large defects who required acetabular reconstruction utilizing a dual mobility cup cemented into an acetabular reconstructive cage. The following outcomes were evaluated: pain relief, functional improvement, postoperative complications. Results Mean follow‐up was 3 years, with 13 of the 19 patients eligible for 2‐year follow‐up. Patients reported a significant improvement in both pain and functional outcomes. There were no dislocations or signs of loosening. Two patients developed postoperative infections. One patient required hemipelvectomy 16 months postop due to recurrence of metastatic disease. Conclusions Cementing a dual mobility cup into an acetabular cage provides a highly stable and durable option for patients with periacetabular metastatic disease and large defects. Patients are able to return to immediate full weight bearing with significant improvement in both function and pain at 2 years.

show abstract

“…In cases with severe bone loss, the use of cemented dual mobility implants into a cage is a reliable option to consider. 22 …”

Section: Dual Mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA

Guyen

2016

EFORT Open Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dislocation remains a common cause of failure after total hip arthroplasty. The limitations of existing approaches to address instability have led to the development of powerfull options: constrained liners, dual mobility and large heads. These implant-related options have proven to be very efficient, but have raised concerns.With constrained liners, restricted range of motion (ROM) is responsible for impingement leading to high likelihood of failure, depending on the design, with various failure modes.Improvements of the bearing materials have addressed some of the concerns about increased volumetric wear of conventional polyethylene and offer an option to reduce instability: large diameter heads have the advantage of increased ROM before impingement, increased head-neck ratio, and jump distance. Highly cross-linked polyethylene helps address the risk for increased wear, and also large heads provide improved stability without the risk of mechanical failures observed with constrained liners. However, the increase of the head size remains limited as reducing the thickness of the liner may lead to fractures. In addition, the jump distance decreases as the cup abduction increases.The dual mobility concept simultaneously attempts to address head-neck ratio, constraint, and jump distance. Despite the need for longer follow-up, concerns raised about potential increased wear and intra-prosthetic dislocation with first generation implants have been addressed with modern designs.With a dramatic increase of the head-neck ratio whilst reducing the risk of mechanical failure or excessive wear, dual mobility THA outperforms large diameter heads and constrained liners at 10 years follow-up. For these reasons, dual mobility continues to gain interest worldwide and is becoming the most popular option to manage instability.Cite this article: Guyen O. Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:197-204. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000054.

show abstract

Acetabular Reconstruction Using a Kerboull Cross-Plate, Structural Allograft and Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup in Revision THA at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Cited by 59 publications

References 32 publications

Dual mobility cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: Dislocation rate and survival after 5 years

Dual mobility cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: Dislocation rate and survival after 5 years

Rapid return to function and stability with dual mobility components cemented into an acetabular reconstructive cage for large osseous defects in the setting of periacetabular metastatic disease

Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About