Third generation Dual Mobility Cups: could be the future in total hip arthroplasty? A five-year experience with dualis.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 03 2022
10 03 2022
Historique:
received:
12
11
2021
accepted:
03
02
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
26
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The concept of dual mobility (DM) is currently approved as a valid option for reducing the risk of dislocation, with an incidence ranging from 0% to 4.6%. The principle is to achieve a high joint stability through a large diameter polyethylene (PE) liner, and to reduce cutting forces due to a "low-friction" head-liner coupling mechanism. From March 2015 to March 2020, 138 patients were treated with Dualis Cup (Gruppo Bioimpianti-Peschiera Borromeo, MI, Italy) for a total of 141 implants (three cases were bilateral). The average age at the time of the surgery was 77. Patients' clinical and X-ray follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, 12 months and then once a year. Seven patients (4.9%) had complications which required a second surgery, but only one case (0.7%) of intraprosthetic dislocation (which required cup revision), was directly ascribable to the DM cup. Improvements in design and materials of the third generation DM cups allowed both to reduce the rate of dislocations in high-risk patients (i.e., patients with neuro-muscular diseases and cognitive disorders, patients needing revisions, osteosynthesis failures, femoral neck fractures) and to achieve a survival rate similar to standard cups, ensuring a range of motion (ROM) very close to the physiological one. In our brief experience, Dualis Cups showed results comparable to those reported in the literature for Dual Mobility. If this data is confirmed by long-term studies, the use of DM cups could be extended even for young patients with high functional demands. (www.actabiomedica.it).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The concept of dual mobility (DM) is currently approved as a valid option for reducing the risk of dislocation, with an incidence ranging from 0% to 4.6%. The principle is to achieve a high joint stability through a large diameter polyethylene (PE) liner, and to reduce cutting forces due to a "low-friction" head-liner coupling mechanism.
METHODS
From March 2015 to March 2020, 138 patients were treated with Dualis Cup (Gruppo Bioimpianti-Peschiera Borromeo, MI, Italy) for a total of 141 implants (three cases were bilateral). The average age at the time of the surgery was 77. Patients' clinical and X-ray follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, 12 months and then once a year.
RESULTS
Seven patients (4.9%) had complications which required a second surgery, but only one case (0.7%) of intraprosthetic dislocation (which required cup revision), was directly ascribable to the DM cup.
CONCLUSIONS
Improvements in design and materials of the third generation DM cups allowed both to reduce the rate of dislocations in high-risk patients (i.e., patients with neuro-muscular diseases and cognitive disorders, patients needing revisions, osteosynthesis failures, femoral neck fractures) and to achieve a survival rate similar to standard cups, ensuring a range of motion (ROM) very close to the physiological one. In our brief experience, Dualis Cups showed results comparable to those reported in the literature for Dual Mobility. If this data is confirmed by long-term studies, the use of DM cups could be extended even for young patients with high functional demands. (www.actabiomedica.it).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35604267
doi: 10.23750/abm.v92iS3.12541
pmc: PMC9437685
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2021553Références
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):186-9
pubmed: 26318084
Int Orthop. 2019 May;43(5):1071-1082
pubmed: 30032356
Injury. 2019 Aug;50 Suppl 4:S26-S29
pubmed: 30691923
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Apr;29(4):668-9
pubmed: 24655613
Int Orthop. 2019 May;43(5):1097-1105
pubmed: 30027352
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jun;101-B(6_Supple_B):57-61
pubmed: 31146553
Bone Joint J. 2019 Feb;101-B(2):198-206
pubmed: 30700125
Arthroplast Today. 2019 Jan 22;5(1):38-42
pubmed: 31020019
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Apr;28(3):445-455
pubmed: 29119371
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Mar;471(3):965-70
pubmed: 23054529
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 May 15;95(10):865-72
pubmed: 23677352
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019 May;105(3):491-495
pubmed: 30922807
Hip Int. 2018 Sep;28(5):491-497
pubmed: 29781290
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(5):197-204
pubmed: 28461948
Int Orthop. 2014 Jun;38(6):1125-9
pubmed: 24737147
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004 May;90(3):249-55
pubmed: 15211274
Int Orthop. 2020 May;44(5):857-862
pubmed: 32077995
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Nov;15(11):835-845
pubmed: 30345834
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Dec;104(8):1179-1182
pubmed: 30297115
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):605-610
pubmed: 27888294
Arthroplast Today. 2020 Aug 30;6(4):749-754
pubmed: 32923563
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):225-30
pubmed: 21184223
Bone Joint J. 2018 Jan;100-B(1):11-19
pubmed: 29305445
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Apr;35(4):1109-1116
pubmed: 31866254
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Jun;28(6):1041-6
pubmed: 23434106
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Oct;100(6):657-62
pubmed: 25172019
Int Orthop. 2019 Dec;43(12):2691-2695
pubmed: 30612171