Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of modular dual mobility for revision hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background:

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of modular dual mobility (MDM) in revision hip arthroplasty.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic search of databases. The primary outcome of interest was complications, while quality of life or functionality was evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Short Form-12 (SF-12). Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4. 9 studies (n = 648) were included.

Results:

The results indicated a statistically significant improvement in the quality of life or functionality of patients at the end of the follow-up period (standardised mean difference −1.48, 95% CI, −2.24–−0.72). The incidences of dislocation, revision, infection, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic fracture were 8.69%, 11.92%, 11.38%, 5.69%, and 1.27%, respectively. The revision and aseptic loosening survivorship rates were 91% (95% CI, 80–96%) and 98% (95% CI 89–99%), respectively, at 36 months. Blood loss was similar among studies, while corrosion measured by cobalt-chromium levels in blood exceeded clinically relevant limits in some studies. Radiolucency around the acetabular shell, cup inclination, and anteversion were assessed.

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis suggests that modular dual mobility is a safe and effective option for revision hip arthroplasty, with significant improvement in the quality of life of patients. However, the possibility of corrosion by modular dual mobility should be carefully monitored in selected patients.

PROSPERO registration:

CRD42023424561

Keywords

Hip arthroplasty meta-analysis modular dual mobility revision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Jimenez Almonte

Sierra

RJ.

The cumulative risk of re-dislocation after revision THA performed for instability increases close to 35% at 15 years. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1177–1182.

Bains

Dubin

Salib

, et al. The epidemiology of the revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States from 2016 to 2022. Arthroplast Today 2024; 30: 101517.

Kunutsor

Barrett

Beswick

, et al. Risk factors for dislocation after primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 125 studies involving approximately five million hip replacements. Lancet Rheumatol 2019; 1: e111–e121.

Newman

Khlopas

Chughtai

, et al. Cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 years. J Knee Surg 2017; 30: 930–935.

Dubin

Westrich

GH.

Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5: 509–514.

McClellan

Calderon

Bolognesi

, et al. Dislocation rate at short-term follow-up after revision total hip arthroplasty with a dual mobility component. Duke Orthop J 2016; 6: 17–20.

Hartzler

Abdel

Sculco

, et al. Otto Aufranc Award: dual-mobility constructs in revision THA reduced dislocation, rerevision, and reoperation compared with large femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476: 293–301.

Nam

Salih

Brown

, et al. Metal ion levels in young, active patients receiving a modular, dual mobility total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1581–1585.

Matsen Ko

Pollag

Yoo

, et al. Serum metal ion levels following total hip arthroplasty with modular dual mobility components. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 186–189.

10.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 134: 103–112.

11.

Lera

Márquez

Saguez

, et al. Quality of life of older people with depression and dependence: validity of the SF-12 (short form health survey) questionnaire. Rev Med Chil 2021; 149: 1292–1301. Spanish

12.

Singh

Schleck

Harmsen

, et al. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 256.

13.

Jacquet

Pioger

Khakha

, et al. Evaluation of the “Minimal Clinically Important Difference” (MCID) of the KOOS, KSS and SF-12 scores after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 29: 820–826.

14.

Connelly

Galea

Matuszak

, et al. Indications for MARS-MRI in patients treated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1919–1925.

15.

Høl

Hallan

Furnes

, et al. Equally low blood metal ion levels at 10-years follow up of total hip arthroplasties with Oxinium, CoCrMo and stainless steel femoral heads. Data from a randomized clinical trial 2022. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2023; 111: 821–828.

16.

Wang

Yang

, et al. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary. Mil Med Res 2020; 7: 7.

17.

Cumpston

Page

, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10: ED000142.

18.

Allagh

Shamanna

Murthy

GVS

, et al. Birth prevalence of neural tube defects and orofacial clefts in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0118961.

19.

Carulli

Macera

Matassi

, et al. The use of a dual mobility cup in the management of recurrent dislocations of hip hemiarthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 2016; 17: 131–136.

20.

Chalmers

Pallante

Taunton

, et al. Can dislocation of a constrained liner be salvaged with dual-mobility constructs in revision THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476: 305–312.

21.

Chalmers

Mangold

Hanssen

, et al. Uniformly low serum cobalt levels after modular dual-mobility total hip arthroplasties with ceramic heads. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. B): 57–61.

22.

Diamond

Konan

Greidanus

, et al. An early report of the use of a modular dual mobility articulation in revision acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2961–2966.

23.

Huang

Malkani

Harwin

, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a modular dual mobility construct for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: S287–S291.

24.

Kozick

Sherman

, et al. Dual mobility bearing articulations result in lower rates of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019; 28: 831–837.

25.

Park

Lim

Kim

, et al. Outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty using the modular dual mobility acetabular system to treat recurrent dislocation. Int Orthop 2022; 46: 789–795.

26.

Sutter

McClellan

Attarian

, et al. Outcomes of modular dual mobility acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: S220–S224.

27.

Yun

Qutami

Carles

Modular dual mobility constructs used for recurrent hip instability. Cureus 2021; 13: e18251.

28.

Chalmers

Perry

Hanssen

, et al. Conversion of hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty utilizing a dual-mobility construct compared with large femoral heads. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 3071–3075.

29.

Cho

Choi

Kim

JJ.

Current concepts of using large femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Pelvis 2016; 28: 134–141.

30.

Guyen

Constrained liners, dual mobility or large diameter heads to avoid dislocation in THA. EFORT Open Rev 2016; 1: 197–204.

31.

Otero

Heckmann

Jaffri

, et al. Dual mobility articulation in revision total hip arthroplasty: an American joint replacement analysis of patients aged 65 years and older registry analysis of patients aged 65 years and older. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(Suppl. 2): S376–3780.

32.

Berstock

Whitehouse

Duncan

CP.

Trunnion corrosion: what surgeons need to know in 2018. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B(Suppl. A): 44–49.

33.

Barlow

Ortiz

Boles

, et al. What are normal metal ion levels after total hip arthroplasty? A serologic analysis of four bearing surfaces. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1535–1542.

34.

Seagrave

Troelsen

Malchau

, et al. Acetabular cup position and risk of dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 10–17.

35.

Choi

Kim

SG.

The short-term clinical outcome of total hip arthroplasty using short metaphyseal loading femoral stem. Hip Pelvis 2016; 28: 82–89.

36.

Ponomarjova

Jakovicka

Studers

Massive periprosthetic osteolysis spreads to the soft tissue and pelvic region after primary total hip replacement: a case report. J Orthop Case Rep 2023; 13: 25–29.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB