Cemented Dual Mobility Cup for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elder Patients with High-Risk Instability.
cemented dual mobility cup
complications and survival
total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2308-3417
Titre abrégé: Geriatrics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101704019
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Mar 2021
07 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
09
02
2021
revised:
28
02
2021
accepted:
03
03
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
4
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies have shown that double mobility (DM) cups reduce postoperative dislocations. Does the cemented dual mobility cup reduce dislocations in a specific cohort of elder patients with a high dislocation risk? Our hypothesis is that this implant is optimal for elder patients because it reduces early dislocation. We have retrospectively reviewed elder patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cemented double mobility cup between March 2009 and January 2018. The inclusion criteria were patients (>75 years) who were operated on for primary THA (osteoarthritis or necrosis) with a cemented dual mobility cup and a high-risk instability (at least two patient-dependent risk factors for instability). The exclusion criteria were revision surgeries or hip fracture. In all the cases, the same surgical approach was performed with a Watson Jones modified approach in supine position. We have collected demographic data, instability risk factors. Patients were classified using the Devane's score, Merle d'Aubigné score and the patient's likelihood of falling with the Morse Fall Scale. Surgical and follow-up complications were collected from their medical history. Sixty-eight arthroplasties (68 patients) were included in the study. The median age was 81.7 years (SD 6.4), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score showed a distribution: II 27.94%, III 63.24% and IV 8.82%. Devane's score was less than five in all of the cases. At least two patient-dependent risk factors for instability (87% had three or more) were present in each case. The median follow-up time was 49.04 months (SD 22.6). Complications observed were two cases of infection and one case of aseptic loosening at 15 months which required revision surgery. We did not observe any prosthetic dislocation. The cemented dual mobility cup is an excellent surgical option on primary total hip arthroplasties for elder patients with high-risk instability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33800068
pii: geriatrics6010023
doi: 10.3390/geriatrics6010023
pmc: PMC8005968
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int Orthop. 2012 Mar;36(3):511-8
pubmed: 21698430
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Mar;27(3):493.e1-3
pubmed: 21752581
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Feb;30(2):241-8
pubmed: 25449593
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Feb;97(1):2-7
pubmed: 21177149
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Oct;20(7 Suppl 3):93-102
pubmed: 16214009
Hip Int. 2021 Mar;31(2):174-180
pubmed: 31875722
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Feb;97(1):8-13
pubmed: 21273156
Int Orthop. 2009 Aug;33(4):927-32
pubmed: 18521598
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Jul;88(7):870-6
pubmed: 16798987
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Nov;470(11):3048-53
pubmed: 22639330
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008 Dec;94(8):e17-22
pubmed: 19070709
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):20-6
pubmed: 12533567
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 May 3;99(9):768-777
pubmed: 28463921
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Apr;102(2):143-8
pubmed: 26803224
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008 Dec;94(8):731-9
pubmed: 19070715
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jun;31(6):1256-1260
pubmed: 26718778
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 May;98(3):296-300
pubmed: 22463868
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Feb;466(2):389-95
pubmed: 18196422
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Mar;124(2):137-9
pubmed: 14652779
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Jul 17;101(14):1278-1285
pubmed: 31318807
Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(1):81-6
pubmed: 2928815
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1 Suppl A):60-3
pubmed: 26733643
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jul;90(7):1553-60
pubmed: 18594105
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):589-594
pubmed: 28091769
Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:265-74
pubmed: 11372323
Orthop Clin North Am. 2001 Oct;32(4):543-52, vii
pubmed: 11689368
Orthopedics. 2008 Dec;31(12 Suppl 2):
pubmed: 19298026
J Arthroplasty. 1995 Nov;10 Suppl:S1-7
pubmed: 8776049
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Oct;95(6):407-13
pubmed: 19656750
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jan;101-B(1_Supple_A):41-45
pubmed: 30648492
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):225-30
pubmed: 21184223
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Feb;100(1):85-91
pubmed: 24447655
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Aug 06;11:175
pubmed: 20691056
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Oct;20(7 Suppl 3):103-7
pubmed: 16214010
J Arthroplasty. 2003 Oct;18(7 Suppl 1):131-7
pubmed: 14560423
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Oct;474(10):2188-9
pubmed: 27225702
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):128-33
pubmed: 19122087
Int Orthop. 1998;22(4):219-24
pubmed: 9795807
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008 Dec;94(8):e23-7
pubmed: 19070710
Stat Med. 1988 Sep;7(9):947-54
pubmed: 3175394
J Arthroplasty. 1994 Feb;9(1):17-23
pubmed: 8163971
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Sep;103(5):663-668
pubmed: 28629944
Int Orthop. 2012 Dec;36(12):2411-8
pubmed: 23073926
Instr Course Lect. 2003;52:247-55
pubmed: 12690852