Hip & pelvis

  • 제34권2호
  • /
  • Pages.96-105
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2287-3260(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3279(eISSN)
대한고관절학회 (The Korean Hip Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dual-mobility versus Fixed-bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcome Comparison

  • Vivek Singh (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health) ;
  • Jeremy Loloi (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health) ;
  • William Macaulay (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health) ;
  • Matthew S. Hepinstall (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health) ;
  • Ran Schwarzkopf (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health) ;
  • Vinay K. Aggarwal (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health)
  • 투고 : 2021.08.25
  • 심사 : 2022.01.13
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA. Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes. Results: Of the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups. Conclusion: DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA. Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS, et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2088-92. 
  2. Werner BC, Brown TE. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012;3:122-30. 
  3. Lautridou C, Lebel B, Burdin G, Vielpeau C. [Survival of the cementless Bousquet dual mobility cup: minimum 15-year follow-up of 437 total hip arthroplasties]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:731-9. French. 
  4. Hartzler MA, Abdel MP, Sculco PK, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW, Hanssen AD. Otto Aufranc Award: dual-mobility constructs in revision THA reduced dislocation, rerevision, and reoperation compared with large femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:293-301. 
  5. Levin JM, Sultan AA, O'Donnell JA, et al. Modern dual-mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:3793-800. 
  6. Harwin SF, Sultan AA, Khlopas A, et al. Mid-term outcomes of dual mobility acetabular cups for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:1494-500. 
  7. Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C. The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop. 2011;35:225-30. 
  8. Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F. Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop. 2012;36:511-8. 
  9. Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F. Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:965-70. 
  10. De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Waddell BS, McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants: a systematic review. Arthroplast Today. 2017;3:197-202. 
  11. Abdelaal MS, Zachwieja E, Sharkey PF. Severe corrosion of modular dual mobility acetabular components identified during revision total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2021;8:78-83. 
  12. Kolz JM, Wyles CC, Van Citters DW, Chapman RM, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. In vivo corrosion of modular dual-mobility implants: a retrieval study. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:3326-9. 
  13. Heckmann N, Weitzman DS, Jaffri H, Berry DJ, Springer BD, Lieberman JR. Trends in the use of dual mobility bearings in hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(7_Supple_B):27-32. 
  14. Heckmann N, Ihn H, Stefl M, et al. Early results from the American Joint Replacement Registry: a comparison with other national registries. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7S):S125-34.e1. 
  15. Harwin SF, Sodhi N, Ehiorobo J, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Mont MA. Outcomes of dual mobility acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty patients. Surg Technol Int. 2019;34:367-70. 
  16. Rowan FE, Salvatore AJ, Lange JK, Westrich GH. Dual-mobility vs fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years of age: a single-institution, matched-cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:3076-81. 
  17. Dubin JA, Westrich GH. Lack of early dislocation for dual mobility vs. fixed bearing total hip arthroplasty: a multi-center analysis of comparable cohorts. J Orthop. 2020;21:1-5. 
  18. Darrith B, Courtney PM, Della Valle CJ. Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:11-9. 
  19. De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Soranoglou VG, Poultsides LA, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(ASuppl1):18-24. Erratum in: Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:702-4. 
  20. Leiber-Wackenheim F, Brunschweiler B, Ehlinger M, Gabrion A, Mertl P. Treatment of recurrent THR dislocation using of a cementless dual-mobility cup: a 59 cases series with a mean 8 years' follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:8-13. 
  21. Vahedi H, Makhdom AM, Parvizi J. Dual mobility acetabular cup for total hip arthroplasty: use with caution. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14:237-43. 
  22. Fessy MH, Riglet L, Gras LL, Neyra H, Pialat JB, Viste A. Ilio-psoas impingement with a dual-mobility liner: an original case report and review of literature. SICOT J. 2020;6:27. 
  23. Lee GC, Kamath A, Courtney PM. Clinical concerns with dual mobility- should I avoid it when possible? J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(7S):S88-91. 
  24. Stavrakis AI, Khoshbin A, Joseph A, et al. Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty is not associated with a greater incidence of groin pain in comparison with conventional total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing: a retrospective comparative study. HSS J. 2020;16(Suppl 2):394-9. 
  25. Kane LT, Fang T, Galetta MS, et al. Propensity score matching: a statistical method. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:120-2. 
  26. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv. 2008;22:31-72. 
  27. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51:171-84. 
  28. Dubin JA, Westrich GH. Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study. Arthroplast Today. 2019;5:509-14. 
  29. Bartelt RB, Yuan BJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ. The prevalence of groin pain after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2346-56. 
  30. Browne JA, Polga DJ, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME. Failure of larger-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty resulting from anterior iliopsoas impingement. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:978.e5-8.
  31. Cooper HJ, Della Valle CJ. Large diameter femoral heads: is bigger always better? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Supple A):23-6. 
  32. Romagnoli M, Grassi A, Costa GG, Lazaro LE, Lo Presti M, Zaffagnini S. The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2019;43:1071-82. 
  33. Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Verdier R. Dual mobility cup: dislocation rate and survivorship at ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop. 2013;37:2345-50. 
  34. Jones CW, De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Nocon AA, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. The use of dual-mobility bearings in patients at high risk of dislocation. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(1_Supple_A):41-5. 
  35. Lu Y, Xiao H, Xue F. Causes of and treatment options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Exp Ther Med. 2019;18:1715-22. 
  36. Huang RC, Malkani AL, Harwin SF, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a modular dual mobility construct for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7S):S287-91.