Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up
Background The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons. Methods From a computerized database, we id...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International orthopaedics 2020-02, Vol.44 (2), p.253-260 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 260 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 253 |
| container_title | International orthopaedics |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | de l’Escalopier, Nicolas Dumaine, Valérie Auberger, Guillaume Babinet, Antoine Courpied, Jean-Pierre Anract, Philippe Hamadouche, Moussa |
| description | Background
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.
Methods
From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.
Results
Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4–31.3),
p
= 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC
95%
, 79.9–100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank,
p
= 0.5).
Conclusions
The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2317591502</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2317591502</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-53c82e01d5f6611be52708a88c96b1e719d4dfba9bd232e98b9bbcb3bb46aad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcuO1DAQRS0EYpqBH2CBvGRjsB3nxQ4NT2kkNrO37KRCe-SOg8vOKD_Ed-KeNCxZWao691iqS8hrwd8Jztv3yLlsFOOiZ1wpVTP1hByEqiSrRV8_JQdeKcFk09dX5AXiPeeibTrxnFxVoq07KboD-f0pG09PwTrv0kaHMGOKeUhI3UwjrA5dmGkKqVBHt1AT0zGGxRtM2weKOa5uDREfV7PxG7pLcsgxwpzo6NCHwaSzZoWIGWlIR4iFGt0-R2oSLVqA8hFND-BXYBuYSKfgfXhgeXlJnk3GI7y6vNfk7svnu5tv7PbH1-83H2_ZUKk2sboaOglcjPXUNEJYqGXLO9N1Q99YAa3oRzVO1vR2lJWEvrO9tYOtrFWNMWN1Td7u2iWGXxkw6ZPDAbw3M4SMWp4P14uay4LKHR1iQIww6SW6k4mbFlyf69F7PbrUox_r0aqE3lz82Z5g_Bf520cBqh3Aspp_QtT3IcdyWPyf9g-6OaFn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2317591502</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas ; Dumaine, Valérie ; Auberger, Guillaume ; Babinet, Antoine ; Courpied, Jean-Pierre ; Anract, Philippe ; Hamadouche, Moussa</creator><creatorcontrib>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas ; Dumaine, Valérie ; Auberger, Guillaume ; Babinet, Antoine ; Courpied, Jean-Pierre ; Anract, Philippe ; Hamadouche, Moussa</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.
Methods
From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.
Results
Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4–31.3),
p
= 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC
95%
, 79.9–100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank,
p
= 0.5).
Conclusions
The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0341-2695</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-5195</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31758218</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hip Dislocation - prevention & control ; Hip Dislocation - surgery ; Hip Joint - surgery ; Hip Prosthesis ; Humans ; Joint Instability - prevention & control ; Joint Instability - surgery ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Original Paper ; Orthopedics ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Recurrence ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>International orthopaedics, 2020-02, Vol.44 (2), p.253-260</ispartof><rights>SICOT aisbl 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-53c82e01d5f6611be52708a88c96b1e719d4dfba9bd232e98b9bbcb3bb46aad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-53c82e01d5f6611be52708a88c96b1e719d4dfba9bd232e98b9bbcb3bb46aad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6333-7311</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31758218$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumaine, Valérie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auberger, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babinet, Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courpied, Jean-Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anract, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamadouche, Moussa</creatorcontrib><title>Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up</title><title>International orthopaedics</title><addtitle>International Orthopaedics (SICOT)</addtitle><addtitle>Int Orthop</addtitle><description>Background
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.
Methods
From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.
Results
Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4–31.3),
p
= 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC
95%
, 79.9–100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank,
p
= 0.5).
Conclusions
The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hip Dislocation - prevention & control</subject><subject>Hip Dislocation - surgery</subject><subject>Hip Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Instability - prevention & control</subject><subject>Joint Instability - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0341-2695</issn><issn>1432-5195</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcuO1DAQRS0EYpqBH2CBvGRjsB3nxQ4NT2kkNrO37KRCe-SOg8vOKD_Ed-KeNCxZWao691iqS8hrwd8Jztv3yLlsFOOiZ1wpVTP1hByEqiSrRV8_JQdeKcFk09dX5AXiPeeibTrxnFxVoq07KboD-f0pG09PwTrv0kaHMGOKeUhI3UwjrA5dmGkKqVBHt1AT0zGGxRtM2weKOa5uDREfV7PxG7pLcsgxwpzo6NCHwaSzZoWIGWlIR4iFGt0-R2oSLVqA8hFND-BXYBuYSKfgfXhgeXlJnk3GI7y6vNfk7svnu5tv7PbH1-83H2_ZUKk2sboaOglcjPXUNEJYqGXLO9N1Q99YAa3oRzVO1vR2lJWEvrO9tYOtrFWNMWN1Td7u2iWGXxkw6ZPDAbw3M4SMWp4P14uay4LKHR1iQIww6SW6k4mbFlyf69F7PbrUox_r0aqE3lz82Z5g_Bf520cBqh3Aspp_QtT3IcdyWPyf9g-6OaFn</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas</creator><creator>Dumaine, Valérie</creator><creator>Auberger, Guillaume</creator><creator>Babinet, Antoine</creator><creator>Courpied, Jean-Pierre</creator><creator>Anract, Philippe</creator><creator>Hamadouche, Moussa</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6333-7311</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up</title><author>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas ; Dumaine, Valérie ; Auberger, Guillaume ; Babinet, Antoine ; Courpied, Jean-Pierre ; Anract, Philippe ; Hamadouche, Moussa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-53c82e01d5f6611be52708a88c96b1e719d4dfba9bd232e98b9bbcb3bb46aad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hip Dislocation - prevention & control</topic><topic>Hip Dislocation - surgery</topic><topic>Hip Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Instability - prevention & control</topic><topic>Joint Instability - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumaine, Valérie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auberger, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babinet, Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courpied, Jean-Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anract, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamadouche, Moussa</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de l’Escalopier, Nicolas</au><au>Dumaine, Valérie</au><au>Auberger, Guillaume</au><au>Babinet, Antoine</au><au>Courpied, Jean-Pierre</au><au>Anract, Philippe</au><au>Hamadouche, Moussa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up</atitle><jtitle>International orthopaedics</jtitle><stitle>International Orthopaedics (SICOT)</stitle><addtitle>Int Orthop</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>253</spage><epage>260</epage><pages>253-260</pages><issn>0341-2695</issn><eissn>1432-5195</eissn><abstract>Background
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical, radiologic, and survival results of dual mobility (DM) sockets in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for instability versus revision THAs performed for other reasons.
Methods
From a computerized database, we identified 84 revision THAs using a modern DM socket performed in 81 patients with a mean age of 71 years. Indication for revision was recurrent dislocation in 47 hips, and other reasons in the remaining 37 hips. A survivorship analysis according to the actuarial method was carried out on the entire series using revision for any cause, revision for dislocation, and radiological cup loosening revised or not, as the end points.
Results
Of the 81 patients, twelve died, six were lost to follow-up, eight had been revised, and 55 patients (58 hips) were unrevised and alive at a mean follow-up of 6.4 years. Dislocation occurred in four of the 47 (8.5%) hips for which indication for revision was dislocation versus one of the remaining 37 (2.7%) hips [odds ratio = 3.4 (0.4–31.3),
p
= 0.07]. According to our criteria, three acetabular components of which one was revised were considered as loosened. When using revision for dislocation as the end-point, the survival rate at seven years was 90.4 ± 5.3% (IC
95%
, 79.9–100) in the 47 hips for which the indication for revision was dislocation versus 100% in the remaining 37 hips (log-rank,
p
= 0.5).
Conclusions
The current study indicated that DM sockets represent an interesting solution to prevent dislocation in revision THAs at mid-term follow-up.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>31758218</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6333-7311</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0341-2695 |
| ispartof | International orthopaedics, 2020-02, Vol.44 (2), p.253-260 |
| issn | 0341-2695 1432-5195 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2317591502 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods Equipment Failure Analysis Female Follow-Up Studies Hip Dislocation - prevention & control Hip Dislocation - surgery Hip Joint - surgery Hip Prosthesis Humans Joint Instability - prevention & control Joint Instability - surgery Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Original Paper Orthopedics Prosthesis Design Prosthesis Failure Recurrence Reoperation Retrospective Studies |
| title | Dual mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty: survivorship analysis in recurrent dislocation versus other indications at three to twelve-year follow-up |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T21%3A48%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dual%20mobility%20constructs%20in%20revision%20total%20hip%20arthroplasty:%20survivorship%20analysis%20in%20recurrent%20dislocation%20versus%20other%20indications%20at%20three%20to%20twelve-year%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=International%20orthopaedics&rft.au=de%20l%E2%80%99Escalopier,%20Nicolas&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=253&rft.epage=260&rft.pages=253-260&rft.issn=0341-2695&rft.eissn=1432-5195&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00264-019-04445-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2317591502%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2317591502&rft_id=info:pmid/31758218&rfr_iscdi=true |