Dislocation rates with combinations of anti-protrusio cages and dual mobility cups in revision cases: Are we safe?
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
8
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Due to the increasing numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures being carried out, the frequency of major acetabular defects is also rising. A combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup has been used in our department since 2007 in order to reduce the dislocation rate associated with complex defects. Although both implants have an important place in endoprosthetics, there are as yet limited data on the dislocation and complication rates with this combination. This retrospective study included all patients in whom a Burch-Schneider cage and a dual mobility cup were implanted in our department between 2007 and 2014 and who had a minimum follow-up period of 24 months. The study included 79 patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.3 years. The implant survival rate was 85% at 65 months. Postoperative dislocation occurred in two cases (2.1%), with the first dislocation taking place within the first 3 weeks in both of these patients. The present study shows a promising dislocation rate with a combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup. Particularly in the medium-term follow-up, no further dislocations occurred in the study. A maximum cup inclination of 45° in revision cases was associated with a lower dislocation rate in this group of patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Due to the increasing numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures being carried out, the frequency of major acetabular defects is also rising. A combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup has been used in our department since 2007 in order to reduce the dislocation rate associated with complex defects. Although both implants have an important place in endoprosthetics, there are as yet limited data on the dislocation and complication rates with this combination.
METHODS
This retrospective study included all patients in whom a Burch-Schneider cage and a dual mobility cup were implanted in our department between 2007 and 2014 and who had a minimum follow-up period of 24 months.
RESULTS
The study included 79 patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.3 years. The implant survival rate was 85% at 65 months. Postoperative dislocation occurred in two cases (2.1%), with the first dislocation taking place within the first 3 weeks in both of these patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study shows a promising dislocation rate with a combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup. Particularly in the medium-term follow-up, no further dislocations occurred in the study. A maximum cup inclination of 45° in revision cases was associated with a lower dislocation rate in this group of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30730966
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212072
pii: PONE-D-18-32683
pmc: PMC6366705
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.7616198']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0212072Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Orthop Clin North Am. 1992 Apr;23(2):237-48
pubmed: 1570136
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Mar;87(3):570-6
pubmed: 15741624
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Mar;472(3):962-7
pubmed: 24150890
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Oct;69(8):1144-9
pubmed: 3667643
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Mar;60(2):217-20
pubmed: 641088
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun;21(4):489-96
pubmed: 16781399
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jun;(243):126-37
pubmed: 2721052
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Dec;470(12):3542-8
pubmed: 22700131
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Jun;27(6):1057-63.e1
pubmed: 22397857
J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun;10(3):307-12
pubmed: 7673909
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Feb;455:202-8
pubmed: 17279045
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55
pubmed: 5783851
J Arthroplasty. 2001 Dec;16(8):961-9
pubmed: 11740749
Bone Joint Res. 2014 Jun;3(6):175-82
pubmed: 24894596
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Dec;64(9):1295-306
pubmed: 7142237
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 May;90(5):574-8
pubmed: 18450621
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:144-51
pubmed: 17908880
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):289-98
pubmed: 21234562
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Dec;15(8):959-63
pubmed: 11112187
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):219-24
pubmed: 18813895
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jun;22(4 Suppl 1):86-90
pubmed: 17570285
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Nov;80(6):946-53
pubmed: 9853483
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Feb;24(2):168-74
pubmed: 18534474
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):862-7
pubmed: 11407794
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1986;72 Suppl 2:70-4
pubmed: 3809670
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Jul;30(7):1177-82
pubmed: 25686783
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Sep;26(6 Suppl):46-52
pubmed: 21550768
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):305-312
pubmed: 29529660
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Dec;97(8):807-13
pubmed: 22119512
Orthopade. 2008 Sep;37(9):904, 906-13
pubmed: 18685826
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):410-6
pubmed: 22956236
J Arthroplasty. 2001 Aug;16(5):568-74
pubmed: 11503115