Can Dislocation of a Constrained Liner Be Salvaged With Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA?

Chalmers, Brian P.; Pallante, Graham D.; Taunton, Michael J.; Sierra, Rafael J.; Trousdale, Robert T.

doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000026

Cited by 29 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither study examined dualmobility implants, and their findings should be weighed against a large body of evidence that demonstrates relatively high rates of failure in constrained implants [13,15,28,29], acknowledging their utilization in patients of higher risk [8,9]. Recent reports of dualmobility implants in high-risk cohorts including abductordeficient patients suggest that they are effective in reduction of instability [12,22,30], consistent with the findings of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Instability remains a major concern after revision THA, and implant selection is one strategy to reduce the risk of further instability and failure [1,2,9,23,21,24]. Recent studies of dualmobility implants have demonstrated good outcomes in primary [25][26][27] and revision THA [20,22]. Notably, several studies have examined their use in high-risk cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical outcomes of dual-mobility articulations in the setting of revision THA have been encouraging [18][19][20][21], with low reported rates of dislocation (1.5%) and intraprosthetic dislocation (0.2%) [21]. In addition, a recent study has demonstrated that the use of dualmobility may even be effective in the treatment of failed constrained liners, potentially expanding indications for their use [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA. Methods: We reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint. Results: Of the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P ¼ .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P ¼ .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P ¼ .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P ¼ .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P ¼ .059). Conclusion: Both CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ozden et al [31] reported successfully treating instability with dual mobility in a series of 17 patients with abductor deficiency at the time of acetabular revision. Dual mobility has also been effective as a salvage procedure in patients who have failed a previous constrained liner [32]. The dual-mobility construct offered by the hip system that the authors typically use was not FDA approved until 2011.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mid-Term Survivorship of a Novel Constrained Acetabular Device

Crawford¹,

Adams²,

Brown³

et al. 2020

The Journal of Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Postoperative dislocations are often associated with poor soft-tissue conditions and poor bone stock [28,29]. A recent study by Chalmers et al reported promising results, over a short-term follow-up period, with the implantation of dual mobility cups in revision procedures carried out due to recurrent dislocation [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dislocation rates with combinations of anti-protrusio cages and dual mobility cups in revision cases: Are we safe?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDue to the increasing numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures being carried out, the frequency of major acetabular defects is also rising. A combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup has been used in our department since 2007 in order to reduce the dislocation rate associated with complex defects. Although both implants have an important place in endoprosthetics, there are as yet limited data on the dislocation and complication rates with this combination.MethodsThis retrospective study included all patients in whom a Burch–Schneider cage and a dual mobility cup were implanted in our department between 2007 and 2014 and who had a minimum follow-up period of 24 months.ResultsThe study included 79 patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.3 years. The implant survival rate was 85% at 65 months. Postoperative dislocation occurred in two cases (2.1%), with the first dislocation taking place within the first 3 weeks in both of these patients.ConclusionsThe present study shows a promising dislocation rate with a combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup. Particularly in the medium-term follow-up, no further dislocations occurred in the study. A maximum cup inclination of 45° in revision cases was associated with a lower dislocation rate in this group of patients.

show abstract

Can Dislocation of a Constrained Liner Be Salvaged With Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA?

Abstract: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Cited by 29 publications

References 27 publications

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Mid-Term Survivorship of a Novel Constrained Acetabular Device

Dislocation rates with combinations of anti-protrusio cages and dual mobility cups in revision cases: Are we safe?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About