Modern Dual-Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jay M Levin1, Assem A Sultan1, Jeffrey A O'Donnell1

  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.

The Journal of Arthroplasty
|September 10, 2018
PubMed

Insights

Dual-mobility cups show excellent survivorship and low dislocation rates in revision total hip arthroplasty. These implants are a safe and effective option for high-risk patients needing hip revision surgery.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Arthroplasty Research
  • Biomaterials Engineering

Background:

  • Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents unique challenges, including higher risks of instability and complications.
  • Dual-mobility (DM) cups have emerged as a potential solution to improve outcomes in complex THA cases.
  • Assessing the efficacy of DM cups specifically in revision THA settings is crucial for clinical decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically review and analyze the outcomes of dual-mobility (DM) cups in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
  • To evaluate survivorship rates (all-cause and aseptic), dislocation rates, and overall complication profiles associated with DM cups in revision THA.
  • To assess clinical outcomes using validated health status measures in patients who received DM cups during revision THA.

Main Methods:

  • A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies on DM cups in revision THA.
  • Inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting re-revision rates, complications, and clinical outcomes, specifically excluding primary THA analyses and non-modern implant data (pre-2010).
  • Nine studies met the selection criteria for final meta-analysis and outcome assessment.

Main Results:

  • Dual-mobility cups demonstrated high aseptic (97.7%) and all-cause (94.5%) survivorship rates in revision THA.
  • The overall dislocation rate was low at 2.2%, with intraprosthetic dislocation at 0.3%. Meta-analysis confirmed significantly lower dislocation odds compared to fixed-bearing prostheses (OR 0.24, P = .002).
  • Complications occurred in 7.4% of cases, with infection rates at 3.3%. Postoperative outcomes measured by Harris Hip Scores showed no statistically significant improvement (P > .05).

Conclusions:

  • Dual-mobility cups exhibit excellent survivorship and low rates of dislocation and overall complications in revision total hip arthroplasty.
  • The findings support DM cups as a safe and effective implant choice, particularly for high-risk patient populations undergoing revision THA.
  • Further research may explore factors influencing clinical outcome scores in this patient cohort.
Abstract

Related Concept Videos

Modern Molecular Taxonomy01:29

Modern Molecular Taxonomy

Advancements in molecular biology have revolutionized the identification and characterization of bacteria, with multiple methods leveraging DNA sequencing for enhanced precision. As sequencing technologies improve and costs decline, these approaches are increasingly used in clinical, environmental, and evolutionary studies.Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST) examines several housekeeping genes, essential chromosomal genes encoding cellular functions, to distinguish strains. Approximately...
689
Review and Preview01:10

Review and Preview

In statistics, several tools are used to interpret the data. Measures of central tendency represent the characteristics of the data, such as mean, median, and mode. Additionally, measures of variance like standard deviation and range are used to find the spread of data from the mean. Relative standing measures the distance between data locations. Commonly used measures of relative standings are percentile, z score, and quartiles.
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
8.4K
Review and Preview01:13

Review and Preview

Data are individual items of information obtained from a population or sample. Data may be classified as qualitative (categorical), quantitative continuous, or quantitative discrete. Because it is not practical to measure the entire population in a study, researchers use samples to represent the population. A random sample is a representative group from the population chosen by using a method that gives each individual in the population an equal chance of being included in the sample. Random...
11.5K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
15.1K
Directing Effect of Substituents: meta-Directing Groups01:09

Directing Effect of Substituents: meta-Directing Groups

Substituents on the benzene ring that direct an incoming electrophile to undergo substitution at the meta position are called meta directors. All meta directors either have a positive charge on the atom directly bonded to the ring or a partial positive charge. These groups function by withdrawing electrons from the ring through inductive and resonance effects. Consider the carbocation intermediates formed upon the addition of an electrophile on nitrobenzene at the...
6.0K
Systematic Sampling Method01:17

Systematic Sampling Method

Sampling is a technique to select a portion (or subset) of the larger population and study that portion (the sample) to gain information about the population. Data are the result of sampling from a population. The sampling method ensures that samples are drawn without bias and accurately represent the population. Because measuring the entire population in a study is not practical, researchers use samples to represent the population of interest.
Systematic sampling is one of the simplest methods...
13.3K