본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

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

Vivek Singh|Jeremy Loloi|William Macaulay|Matthew S. Hepinstall|Ran Schwarzkopf|Vinay K. Aggarwal
대한고관절학회 (The Korean Hip Society)|2022.06|Hip and Pelvis|제34권 제2호|pp. 96-105|DOI https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2022.34.2.96

2

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

OutcomesTotal hip arthroplastyDual mobilityFixed bearingPatient reported outcome scores

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.

Abstract

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.

참고문헌 (36)

  1. Gwam CU, "Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States : National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013", J Arthroplasty, 32, pp.2088~2092 (2017)
  2. Werner BC, "Instability after total hip arthroplasty", World J Orthop, 3, pp.122~130 (2012)
  3. Lautridou 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, 94, pp.731~739 (2008)
  4. Hartzler MA, "Otto Aufranc Award : dual-mobility constructs in revision THA reduced dislocation, rerevision, and reoperation compared with large femoral heads", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 476, pp.293~301 (2018)
  5. Levin JM, "Modern dualmobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis", J Arthroplasty, 33, pp.3793~3800 (2018)
  6. Harwin SF, "Mid-term outcomes of dual mobility acetabular cups for revision total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 33, pp.1494~1500 (2018)
  7. Vielpeau C, "The dual mobility socket concept : experience with 668 cases", Int Orthop, 35, pp.225~230 (2011)
  8. Boyer B, "Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation : a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips", Int Orthop, 36, pp.511~518 (2012)
  9. Philippot R, "Intraprosthetic dislocation : a specific complication of the dual-mobility system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 471, pp.965~970 (2013)
  10. De Martino I, "Early intraprosthetic dislocation in dual-mobility implants : a systematic review", Arthroplast Today, 3, pp.197~202 (2017)
  11. Abdelaal MS, "Severe corrosion of modular dual mobility acetabular components identified during revision total hip arthroplasty", Arthroplast Today, 8, pp.78~83 (2021)
  12. Kolz JM, "In vivo corrosion of modular dual-mobility implants : a retrieval study", J Arthroplasty, 35, pp.3326~3329 (2020)
  13. Heckmann N, "Trends in the use of dual mobility bearings in hip arthroplasty", Bone Joint J, 102-B(7_Supple _B), pp.27~32 (2020)
  14. Heckmann N, "Early results from the American Joint Replacement Registry : a comparison with other national registries", J Arthroplasty, 34(7S), pp.S125~S134 (2019)
  15. Harwin SF, "Outcomes of dual mobility acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty patients", Surg Technol Int, 34, pp.367~370 (2019)
  16. Rowan FE, "Dual-mobility vs fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years of age : a single-institution, matched-cohort analysis", J Arthroplasty, 32, pp.3076~3081 (2017)
  17. Dubin JA, "Lack of early dislocation for dual mobility vs. fixed bearing total hip arthroplasty : a multi-center analysis of comparable cohorts", J Orthop, 21, pp.1~5 (2020)
  18. Darrith B, "Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature", Bone Joint J, 100-B, pp.11~19 (2018)
  19. De Martino I, "Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review", Bone Joint J, 99-B(ASuppl1), pp.18~24 (2017)
  20. Leiber-Wackenheim F, "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, 97, pp.8~13 (2011)
  21. Vahedi H, "Dual mobility acetabular cup for total hip arthroplasty : use with caution", Expert Rev Med Devices, 14, pp.237~243 (2017)
  22. Fessy MH, "Ilio-psoas impingement with a dual-mobility liner : an original case report and review of literature", SICOT J, 6, pp.27~ (2020)
  23. Lee GC, "Clinical concerns with dual mobility-should I avoid it when possible?", J Arthroplasty, 36(7S), pp.S88~S91 (2021)
  24. Stavrakis AI, "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, 16(Suppl 2), pp.394~399 (2020)
  25. Kane LT, "Propensity score matching : a statistical method", Clin Spine Surg, 33, pp.120~122 (2020)
  26. Caliendo M, "Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching", J Econ Surv, 22, pp.31~72 (2008)
  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, 51, pp.171~184 (2009)
  28. Dubin JA, "Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty : a matched cohort study", Arthroplast Today, 5, pp.509~514 (2019)
  29. Bartelt RB, "The prevalence of groin pain after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and total hip resurfacing", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 468, pp.2346~2356 (2010)
  30. Browne JA, "Failure of larger-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty resulting from anterior iliopsoas impingement", J Arthroplasty, 26, pp.978~ (2011)
  31. Cooper HJ, "Large diameter femoral heads: is bigger always better?", Bone Joint J, 96-B(11 Supple A), pp.23~26 (2014)
  32. Romagnoli M, "The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies", Int Orthop, 43, pp.1071~1082 (2019)
  33. Prudhon JL, "Dual mobility cup : dislocation rate and survivorship at ten years of follow-up", Int Orthop, 37, pp.2345~2350 (2013)
  34. Jones CW, "The use of dual-mobility bearings in patients at high risk of dislocation", Bone Joint J, 101-B(1_Supple _A), pp.41~45 (2019)
  35. Lu Y, "Causes of and treatment options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty", Exp Ther Med, 18, pp.1715~1722 (2019)
  36. Huang RC, "Multicenter evaluation of a modular dual mobility construct for revision total hip arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 34(7S), pp.S287~S291 (2019)

관련 논문AI추천

Dislocation after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison between Dual Mobility and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty김이석, 신현식, Dong-Hong Kim, Hyung Seob Ahn, Hyung Seok Kim대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2023 · 제35권 제4호Bibliometric Analysis of Dual Mobility Total Hip ArthroplastyAoun Maroun, Boutros Marc, Daher Mohammad, El-Othmani Mouhanad M., Kassis Eliana, Nham Fong H.대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2025 · 제37권 제1호Comparison of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Literature ReviewEduard Van Eecke, Jan Dauwe, Jens Vanbiervliet, Michiel Mulier대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2020 · 제32권 제2호A Comparative Study on the Outcome of Cemented and Cementless Stems during Total Hip Arthroplasty Conversion in Patients with Failed Osteosynthesis of Proximal Femur FractureCarl L. Herndon, Jude T. Okonkwo, Marcel M. Dupont, Mouhanad M. El Othmani, Nana O. Sarpong, William K. Crockatt대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2025 · 제37권 제2호Comparative Outcomes of Dual Mobility Cup versus Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Neurological Disorder with Femoral Neck FracturesHan Seung Beom, Hong Seok Ha대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2025 · 제37권 제3호Measuring the Impact of Femoral Head Size on Dislocation Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty김민욱, 김철환, 이지원, 정영율대한고관절학회 · Hip and Pelvis2017 · 제29권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in LiteratureRichard S. Yoon, Alex Tang, Frank A. Liporace, Erick Heiman, Pasquale Gencarelli Jr., John M. Yinglingpp. 69-78Hemiarthroplasty through Direct Anterior Approach for Unstable Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures in the Elderly: Analysis of Early CasesYoung-Yool Chung, Sung-Nyun Baek, Ji-Hun Park, Tae-Gue Parkpp. 79-86Highly Cited Articles in Periacetabular Osteotomy ResearchMichael D. Stover, Colin K. Cantrell, Cody J. Goedderz, Ryan S. Selley, Ernest L. Sinkpp. 87-95Is Restoration of Hip Center Mandatory for Total Hip Arthroplasty of Protrusio Acetabuli?Beom-Seok Lee, O Sang Kwon, 구경회, Young-Kyun Lee, Yong-Chan Ha, Hong Seok Kimpp. 106-114The Wear Rate and Survivorship in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Third-generation Ceramic Head on a Conventional Polyethylene Liner: A Minimum of 15-year Follow-upSung-Jin Park, Chan-Ho Park, Bum Jin Shimpp. 115-121
원문 보기