Seven-year results of a press-fit, hydroxyapatite-coated double mobility acetabular component in patients aged 65 years or older

Fresard, P.; Alvherne, Charles; Cartier, Jean-Loup; Cuinet, Patrick; Lantuejoul, Jean-Pierre

doi:10.1007/s00590-012-0991-2

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After reviewing the abstracts of these, 75 were screened for eligibility and 16 were identified for inclusion. Fifty-nine articles were excluded because reporting no IPD episodes (30 articles) [7] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , IPD episodes were not mentioned (13) [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , reporting delayed IPD episodes (13) [8] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , [68] , reporting early IPD episodes with old DM designs with small femoral heads (2) [9] , [69] , and reporting a suspicious IPD episode (1) [70] ( Fig. 1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDual mobility implants are subject to a specific implant-related complication, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), in which the polyethylene liner dissociates from the femoral head. For older generation designs, IPD was attributable to late polyethylene wear and subsequent failure of the head capture mechanism. However, early IPDs have been reportedly affecting contemporary designs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and August 2016 using various combinations of the keywords “intraprosthetic dislocation,” “dual mobility,” “dual-mobility,” “tripolar,” “double mobility,” “double-mobility,” “hip,” “cup,” “socket,” and “dislocation.”ResultsIn all, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen were case reports and 2 were retrospective case series. These included a total of 19 total hip arthroplasties, which were divided into 2 groups: studies dealing with early IPD after attempted closed reduction and those dealing with early IPD with no history of previous attempted closed reduction. Early IPD was reported in 15 patients after a mean follow-up of 3.2 months (2.9 SD) in the first group and in 4 patients after a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (9.9 SD) in the second group.ConclusionsBased on the current data, most cases have been preceded by an attempted closed reduction in the setting of outer, large articulation dislocation, perhaps indicating an iatrogenic etiology for early IPD. Recognition of this possible failure mode is essential to its prevention and treatment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is regularly selected in revision surgery to treat instability [29][30][31] and at present often used as primary THA in patients at high risk for dislocation [32,33,70]. Since the DM cup was already developed in the 1970s, many long-term results of case series with DM cups in primary THA have been published [16,17,20,21,38,71]. To our knowledge, there are only a few other systematic reviews reporting on the DM cup [12,19,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This should provide more stability and biomechanically reduce the risk of dislocation [15][16][17]. Dislocation rates reported for the DM cup range from 0 to 3.6% [16][17][18][19][20][21], which seems slightly lower than the 0.5 to 6% reported for the standard, unipolar (UP) cups [22][23][24][25][26]. Also, the use of DM cups for revision surgery in patients with recurrent dislocation has shown promising results [3,27,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can dual mobility cups prevent dislocation without increasing revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

Jonker¹,

Beers²,

Wal³

et al. 2020

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dislocation is one of the leading causes for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address this problem, the dual mobility (DM) cup was developed in the 1970s by the French. Despite the increased and, in some countries, broad use of DM cups, high quality evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional unipolar (UP) cups is lacking. There are a few well-conducted literature reviews, but the level of evidence of the included studies was moderate to low and the rates of revision were not specifically investigated. Therefore, we did a systematic review to investigate whether there is a difference in the rate of dislocations and revisions after primary THA with a DM cup or a UP cup. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases in July 2019. The articles were selected based upon their quality, relevance and measurement of the predictive factor. We used the MINORS criteria to determine the methodological quality of all studies. Results: The initial search resulted in 702 citations. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles met our eligibility criteria and were graded. Included studies were of medium to low methodological quality with a mean score of 14/24 (11-16) points following the MINORS criteria. In the case-control studies, a total of 549 DM cups and 649 UP cups were included. In the registry studies, a total of 5.935 DM cups and 217.362 UP cups were included. In the case-control studies, one (0.2%) dislocation was reported for the DM cups and 46 (7.1%) for the UP cup (p = 0.009, IQR = 0.00-7.00). Nine (1.6%) revisions, of which zero due to dislocation, were reported for the DM cup and 39 (6.0%), of which 30 due to dislocation, for the UP cup (p = 0.046, CI = −16.93-5.73). In the registry studies 161 (2.7%) revisions were reported for the DM cup, of which 14 (8.7%) due to dislocation. For the UP cup, 3.332 (1.5%) revisions were reported (p = 0.275, IQR = 41.00-866.25), of which 1.093 (32.8%) due to dislocation (p = 0.050, . Conclusion:This review suggests lower rates of dislocation and lower rates of revision for dislocation in favor of the DM cups. Concluding, DM cups might be an effective solution to reduce dislocation in primary THA. To evaluate the efficacy of DM cups compared to UP cups, an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial is needed focusing on patient important endpoints. Level of evidence: III, systematic review of level III studies.

show abstract

“…While the mid-term clinical performance of the Avantage Dual Mobility cementless variant has been reported by Fresard et al (16), to our knowledge, no mid-term clinical results are available for the cemented version of this implant. Our experience with the cemented Dual Mobility cup between 2004 and 2008, as reported in this paper, confirmed the good cup design is a documented extremely low risk of dislocation resulting in rapid rehabilitation without classical postoperative restrictions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Good mid-term clinical results of a cemented dual mobility cup: a single-centre experience

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seven-year results of a press-fit, hydroxyapatite-coated double mobility acetabular component in patients aged 65 years or older

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review

Can dual mobility cups prevent dislocation without increasing revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

Good mid-term clinical results of a cemented dual mobility cup: a single-centre experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About