Revision total hip arthroplasty with a Kerboull plate: comparative outcomes using standard versus dual mobility cups.
Acetabulum
/ surgery
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ adverse effects
Bone Plates
Female
Hip Dislocation
/ etiology
Hip Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Joint Instability
/ etiology
Male
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Radiography
Range of Motion, Articular
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Dislocation
Dual mobility
Revision total hip arthroplasty
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
29
06
2018
accepted:
18
10
2018
pubmed:
30
10
2018
medline:
7
7
2020
entrez:
30
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Instability is a major complication in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups were shown to reduce the risk of post-operative implant dislocation. Few case-series studies assessed the outcomes of cemented DM cups when associated to acetabular reconstruction antiprotrusio cages. No published comparative studies were found to look for outcome differences between standard cups (SC) and DM cups in first revision THA associated with a Kerboull plate (KP) and acetabular bone grafting. This is a retrospective comparative study of two groups of patients in two institutions. All cases were first revision THA with KP reconstruction; a cemented standard cup (SC) was used in one institution (THA-SC group) while a cemented DM cup was used in the second institution (THA-DM group). The posterolateral approach and the same technique for KP placement, the cross technique, were performed in both groups. Primary outcomes were dislocation and revision rates. Survivorship and clinical and radiological results were set to be secondary outcomes. There were ten patients (13 hips) in the first group and 16 patients (16 hips) in the second with a mean follow-up clinical and radiological evaluation of 74.2 ± 47.9 months. Besides age, no significant demographic differences were present between both groups. There were three dislocations (23%) in the first group treated with close reduction compared to none in the second (p = 0.04). No further episode of dislocation or revision surgery occurred until the last follow-up in both groups. The mean Harris Hip Scores for the THA-SC and THA-DM groups were 87.5 ± 10.9 and 87.4 ± 12.1, respectively. When present, radiolucent lines were less than 1 mm thick and were non-progressive in both groups. In all patients, complete trabeculation remodeling or cortical repair of the graft was observed. The cup type was the single variable which could account for the observed dislocation rate difference. The mid-term results of using DM cups with KP in first revision THA seem very encouraging. Our findings add to the previously published results on the excellent outcomes in terms of stability in revision THA when using DM cups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30370452
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4209-z
pii: 10.1007/s00264-018-4209-z
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2245-2251Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):2131-8
pubmed: 25467789
Int Orthop. 2012 Mar;36(3):511-8
pubmed: 21698430
Int Orthop. 2019 May;43(5):1071-1082
pubmed: 30032356
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Feb;466(2):389-95
pubmed: 18196422
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Nov-Dec;(121):20-32
pubmed: 991504
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jun;22(4 Suppl 1):86-90
pubmed: 17570285
SICOT J. 2018;4:4
pubmed: 29469804
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):455-459
pubmed: 26660728
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):469-473
pubmed: 27761631
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Apr;25(3):432-6
pubmed: 19369027
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):611-618
pubmed: 27990600
Int Orthop. 2007 Jun;31(3):273-7
pubmed: 16927089
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1015-1020
pubmed: 29196791
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):645-659
pubmed: 28004142
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):583-588
pubmed: 28078362
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):862-7
pubmed: 11407794
Int Orthop. 2019 May;43(5):1097-1105
pubmed: 30027352
Acta Orthop. 2005 Jun;76(3):296-302
pubmed: 16156454
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):573-581
pubmed: 28097387
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Feb;97(1):2-7
pubmed: 21177149
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):433-437
pubmed: 28197702
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):481-490
pubmed: 27872981
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Jun;25(4):594-9
pubmed: 19493654
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun;21(4):489-96
pubmed: 16781399
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Jan;26(1):103-9
pubmed: 20022453
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 May;94(5):603-8
pubmed: 22529077
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Oct;95(6):407-13
pubmed: 19656750
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973 Dec;55(8):1629-32
pubmed: 4217797
Int Orthop. 2009 Aug;33(4):927-32
pubmed: 18521598
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Oct;84(10):1788-92
pubmed: 12377909
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Dec;97(8):807-13
pubmed: 22119512
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Feb;29(2):432-7
pubmed: 23849510
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):535-542
pubmed: 27933422
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):619-624
pubmed: 28074257
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 May;78(5):693-7
pubmed: 8642025
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20(4):536-41
pubmed: 16124973
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Sep;(378):155-68
pubmed: 10986990
SICOT J. 2018;4:20
pubmed: 29864006
Int Orthop. 2008 Oct;32(5):597-604
pubmed: 17443324
Acta Orthop Belg. 2012 Jun;78(3):357-61
pubmed: 22822577