Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2025
In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
Published on: July 2, 2021
Revision hip arthroplasty dislocation risk calculator: when to select dual mobility, large heads, constrained liners,
Philippe Hernigou1, Paul Tannyeres2, Olivier Barbier2
1University Paris East, Paris, France. philippe.hernigou@wanadoo.fr.
Purpose:
Preventing dislocation with large head (≥ 36 mm), dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner is another option than a standard (≤ 32 mm). Many other dislocations risk factors than size of the femoral head exist after hip arthroplasty revision. Predicting dislocation with a calculator according to the implant, to the indication of revision, and to patient's risks could allow a better surgery decision.
Methods:
Our search method covers the period from 2000 to 2022. A total of 470 relevant citations on hip major revision (cup or stem or both revisions) were identified with artificial intelligence comprising 235 publications of 54,742 standard heads comprising 142 publications of 35,270 large heads, comprising 41 publications of 3945 constrained acetabular components, and 52 publications of 10,424 dual mobility implants. We considered four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner) as the entry layer of the artificial neural network (ANN). Indication for revision THA was the second hidden layer. Demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease were the third layer. Implant revision, reconstruction process as next input (hidden layer). Surgery-related factors, and so on. The output was a postoperative dislocation or not.
Results:
Of the 104,381 hips that underwent a major revision, a second revision for dislocation was performed for 9234 hips. In each implant group, dislocation remained the first cause of revision. The rate of second revision for dislocation as a percentage of first revision procedures was significantly higher in the standard head group (11.8%) than in the constrained acetabular liner group (4.5%), the dual mobility group (4.1%), and the large head group (6.1%). Instability of a previous THA, infection, or periprosthetic fracture as the indication for revision was increased risk factors as compared with aseptic loosening. One hundred variables were used to create the calculator with the best parameter combination of data and ranking the different factors, according to the four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner).
Conclusion:
The calculator can be used as a tool to identify patients at risk for dislocation after hip arthroplasty revision and individualize recommendations to select another option than a standard head size.
