The usefulness of dual mobility cups in primary total hip arthroplasty patients at a risk of dislocation

This study aimed to evaluate the early results of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using dual mobility (DM) cups in patients at a risk of dislocation and compare them with that of fixed bearing (FB) THA. This retrospective study included patients who had undergone primary THA between January 2016 and December 2018 and were at a risk of dislocation. A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted for 63 THA procedures with vitamin-E infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) DM bearing and 63 THA procedures performed with FB from the same manufacturer for a mean follow-up period of 3.1 and 3.5 years, respectively. The radiologic outcomes at the last follow-up and incidence of postoperative complications were evaluated and compared statistically between the two groups. The modified Harris hip score (mHHS) was used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Postoperative dislocation occurred in 4 cases (6.3%) in the FB group, but did not occur in the DM group (p = 0.042). There was no difference in the radiologic outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. The mHHS at the last follow-up showed satisfactory outcomes in both the groups (DM group, 90.5; FB group, 88.1), without a statistical difference between the groups. The early results of THA using VEPE DM bearing showed better outcomes than that of THA with FB for patients at a risk of dislocation. A longer follow-up period is recommended to assess the stability and overall outcomes.

Polyethylene wear of dual mobility cups: a comparative analysis based on patient-specific finite element modeling

Purpose Concerns remain about potential increased wear with dual mobility cups related to the multiple articulations involved in this specific design of implant. This finite element analysis study aimed to compare polyethylene (PE) wear between dual mobility cup and conventional acetabular component, and between the use of conventional ultra-high molecular weight PE (UHMWPE) and highly cross-linked PE (XPLE). Methods Patient-specific finite element modeling was developed for 15 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Five acetabular components were 3D modeled and compared in THA constructs replicating existing implants: a dual mobility cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE or XLPE (DM22PE or DM22XL), a conventional cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE (SD22PE) and a conventional cup with a 32-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE or XLPE (SD32PE or SD32XL). Results DM22PE produced 4.6 times and 5.1 times more volumetric wear than SD32XL and DM22XL (p < 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 6.97 and 7.11; respectively). However, even if significant, the differences in volumetric wear between DM22XL and SD32XL as well as between DM22PE and SD22PE or SD32PE were small according to their effect size (p < 0.0001, Cohen’s |d|= 0.48 to 0.65) and could be therefore considered as clinically negligible. Conclusion When using XLPE instead of UHMWPE, dual mobility cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head produced a similar amount of volumetric wear than conventional acetabular component with a 32-mm-diameter femoral head against XLPE. Therefore, XLPE is advocated in dual mobility cup to improve its wear performance.

Total, hemi, or dual-mobility arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients with neurological disease

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the potentially increased risk of dislocation in patients with neurological disease who sustain a femoral neck fracture, as it is unclear whether they should undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). A secondary aim was to investgate whether dual-mobility components confer a reduced risk of dislocation in these patients. Methods We undertook a longitudinal cohort study linking the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register with the National Patient Register, including patients with a neurological disease presenting with a femoral neck fracture and treated with HA, a conventional THA (cTHA) with femoral head size of ≤ 32 mm, or a dual-mobility component THA (DMC-THA) between 2005 and 2014. The dislocation rate at one- and three-year revision, reoperation, and mortality rates were recorded. Cox multivariate regression models were fitted to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results A total of 9,638 patients with a neurological disease who also underwent unilateral arthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture were included in the study. The one-year dislocation rate was 3.7% after HA, 8.8% after cTHA < 32 mm), 5.9% after cTHA (= 32 mm), and 2.7% after DMC-THA. A higher risk of dislocation was associated with cTHA (< 32 mm) compared with HA (HR 1.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.86); p = 0.002). There was no difference in the risk of dislocation with DMC-THA (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.84); p = 0.451) or cTHA (= 32 mm) (HR 1.54 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.51); p = 0.083). There were no differences in the rate of reoperation and revision-free survival between the different types of prosthesis and sizes of femoral head. Conclusion Patients with a neurological disease who sustain a femoral neck fracture have similar rates of dislocation after undergoing HA or DMC-THA. Most patients with a neurological disease are not eligible for THA and should thus undergo HA, whereas those eligible for THA could benefit from a DMC-THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):134–141.

The journey to preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of dual-mobility implants. As clinicians continue to pursue improved outcomes and reduced complications, these concepts will lay the foundation for future innovation in THA and ultimately improved outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):8–11.

Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures

Aims Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA. Methods Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer’s perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions. Results DM-THA was found to be cost-effective, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $46,556 (£27,074) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis revealed DM-THA was not cost-effective across all age groups in the first two years. DM-THA becomes cost-effective for those aged under 80 years at time periods from five to 15 years, but was not cost-effective for those aged 80 years and over at any timepoint. To be cost-effective at ten years in the base case, DM-THA must reduce the risk of dislocation compared to SB-THA by at least 62%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DM-THA was 58% likely to be cost-effective in the base case. Conclusion Treating patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture using DM-THA components may be cost-effective compared to SB-THA in patients aged under 80 years. However, future research will help determine if the modelled rates of adverse events hold true. Surgeons should continue to use clinical judgement and consider individual patients’ physiological age and risk factors for dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1783–1790.

Combined and hybrid marker models for radiostereometry assessment of polyethylene liner motion in dual mobility hip prosthesis: a proof-of-concept study

Background Investigation of polyethylene liner movement in total hip arthroplasty requires bead-marking for radiographic visibility of the liner. However, occlusion of markers poses a challenge for marker registration in radiographs. Methods The polyethylene of a dual mobility acetabular system was marked with twelve 1-mm tantalum markers (four groups of three markers) using a custom-made drill guide. Liner motion in a phantom and a patient was investigated with dynamic radiostereometry analysis (dRSA) at 1-year follow-up and static radiostereometry analysis (sRSA) postoperatively and at 1- and 2-year follow-up. A combined marker configuration (CMC) model was calculated from the registered positions of the liner markers and the femoral head in several images. Furthermore, the CMC model and the theoretic marker positions from computer-assisted models of the drill guide were combined in a hybrid model. Results The CMC model included eleven markers in the phantom and nine markers in the patient, which was sufficient for dRSA. Liner movement in the phantom followed liner contact with the femoral neck, while liner movement in the patient was independent. The hybrid model was necessary to determine liner orientation in sRSA recordings, which clearly changed from postoperative to 1- and 2-year follow-up even though the patient was positioned similarly. Conclusion Polyethylene liner motion in dual mobility hip prosthesis can be assessed with CMC models in dRSA recordings. In sRSA, the liner position between follow-ups is unpredictable and analysis requires inclusion of all markers in the model, accomplished with a hybrid marker model. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02301182], 25 October 2015.