Early Intraprosthetic Dislocation After Closed Reduction in Modern Dual-mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Payapapnon P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8784309 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Among hip arthroplasty, dual mobility aims to improve ROM and reduce dislocation rates, however this particular implant can fail in specific ways. Iatrogenic intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD) is a rare occurrence that can happen during closed reduction of a dislocated dual mobility total hip arthroplasty. PRESENTATION OF CASE:#1 - A 34-year-old male who came to our attention with an undiagnosed IPD. He had experienced a classic dislocation 6 days earlier, which was treated with closed reduction. CT-scan confirmed decoupling of the metal head and PE liner. #2 - An 89-year-old male came to our attention for THA dislocation. During closed reduction manouvers he suffered IPD of the implant. Both patients were treated with revision surgery. DISCUSSION:Despite being already reported in literature, IPD are still not well known to practitioners and sometimes overlooked even by orthopaedic specialists. Given the good results and diffusion of this kind of implant, iatrogenic IPD in the contest of a classic dislocation might become more frequent in the clinical practice. CONCLUSION:When performing reduction maneuvers for a dislocated dual mobility total hip arthroplasty, X-rays must be carefully inspected for signs of IPD which, if undiagnosed, can lead to major implant damage and the need for extensive revision surgery.
| S-EPMC7262377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Total hip replacement is a successful operation for the management of hip pain but there are potential complications, of which dislocation is one of the most common. The management of recurrent dislocation is a challenging problem that requires a multimodal approach and the use of dual-mobility implants is one option. We present a patient who was previously revised with a dual-mobility implant for recurrent dislocation, who had a complication after closed reduction of a subsequent intraprosthetic dislocation. Following a missed radiographical diagnosis, the patient experienced mechanical symptoms on hip flexion caused by a disassociated dual-mobility implant. Subsequent surgical removal of the failed implant and revision was required. Careful study of radiographs revealed an eccentric femoral head and evidence of the disassociated implant within the surrounding soft tissues. Radiographs following closed reduction of intraprosthetic dislocations should be scrutinised closely to detect implant failure to prevent further complications.
| S-EPMC5878339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The concept of a dual mobility (DM) cup has been in existence for more than 40 years and was initially popularized in Europe. Only recently has it started to garner attention in the United States. Its design, consisting of a small femoral head articulating within a larger polyethylene (PE) insert, which articulates with an outer shell, has found increasing use in patients that are at risk for post-operative dislocations. This case report describes a case of recurrent total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation managed with the implantation of a DM cup with an acute intraprosthetic dislocation of the DM construct.A 52-year-old woman underwent an uneventful left THA through a posterior approach. Within 6 weeks of her surgery, she had four dislocations, managed with closed reductions. She then underwent an open revision of her acetabular component with conversion to a DM construct. 5 weeks after her revision, she had another dislocation treated with closed reduction in the operating room, with the resultant eccentric location of the femoral head in the acetabular component. Computed tomography (CT) confirmed intraprosthetic dislocation with the PE liner lodged in the gluteal tissue. She was taken to the operating room with a plan to revise her acetabular component to another DM construct, but with an increase in the anteversion despite initial anteversion being "appropriate" on CT imaging. Intraoperatively, the PE liner was embedded in gluteal tissue as depicted on the CT. The abductors were intact. There was no impingement in extension and maximal external rotation when trialed with a conventional head/liner construct. A new DM construct was then implanted.Intraprosthetic dislocation is a rare occurrence and unique complication to DM constructs. It is not common in the short-term setting postoperatively to our knowledge, and this case report represents an early report of intraprosthetic dislocation in the literature. Care should be taken during reduction of dislocated DM constructs to avoid intraprosthetic dislocations. Open revisions can be managed with revisions to another DM construct or to a constrained liner construct to maximize stability.
| S-EPMC5553828 | biostudies-other
Project description:Dual-mobility (DM) implants have been used in total hip arthroplasty since 1974. Modular DM implants have seen an increase in use in primary and revision total hip arthroplasties given the theoretical decreased dislocation rate. DM constructs have 2 articulation sites, one between the acetabular shell and a polyethylene liner, as well as one between the liner and the femoral head component. However, dislocations with modular DM implant dislocations can still occur. These dislocations occur via an extraprosthetic or intraprosthetic mechanism. Intraprosthetic dislocation is a phenomenon in which the smaller femoral head dissociates from the polyethylene liner. We present a case of intraprosthetic dislocation in an 81-year-old female with migration of the polyethylene liner into her gluteal muscles after 2 attempted closed reductions.
| S-EPMC10827604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 77-year-old man sustained an acetabular fracture after falling from a staircase and landing on his right side. He fractured the anterior column of his acetabulum and the quadrilateral plate. He underwent a single-stage open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture combined with a dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (THA). He sustained a traumatic hip dislocation 1?month postoperatively. Closed reduction was attempted at another hospital, and the femoral stem was pulled out. We believe this was caused by the polyliner being hitched either to the acetabular cup or in the soft tissues around the ilium. We present this case to caution orthopaedic surgeons that dual mobility THA dislocations are difficult to diagnose as the polyliner is not clearly seen on X-rays, and reduction attempts may lead to worsening of an already difficult situation.
| S-EPMC5786971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDual mobility components can be implanted during total hip arthroplasty (THA) for primary osteoarthritis via a direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA), or posterior/posterolateral approach (PLA). This review compares dual mobility hip dislocation rates using these approaches for elective primary THA.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for articles published after January 1, 2006 that reported dislocation rates for adult patients after primary THA with dual mobility implants. Articles were excluded if they reported revision procedures, nonelective THA for femoral neck fractures, acetabular defects requiring supplemental implants, prior surgery, or ≤ 5 patients. The primary outcome was hip dislocation rate. Secondary outcomes included infection, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score.ResultsAfter screening 542 articles, 63 met inclusion criteria. Due to study heterogeneity, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported DAA, 5 reported ALA, 6 reported the DLA, and 56 reported PLA. Study size ranged from 41 to 2,601 patients. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 25 years. Rates of infection and dislocation were low; 80% of ALA, 87.5% of DAA, 100% of DLA, and 82.1% of PLA studies reported zero postoperative dislocations. Studies reporting postoperative HHS and PMA scores showed considerable improvement for all approaches.ConclusionsPatients undergoing primary THA with dual mobility implants rarely experience postoperative dislocation, regardless of surgical approach. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC10032016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDual mobility implants are subject to a specific implant-related complication, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), in which the polyethylene liner dissociates from the femoral head. For older generation designs, IPD was attributable to late polyethylene wear and subsequent failure of the head capture mechanism. However, early IPDs have been reportedly affecting contemporary designs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and August 2016 using various combinations of the keywords "intraprosthetic dislocation," "dual mobility," "dual-mobility," "tripolar," "double mobility," "double-mobility," "hip," "cup," "socket," and "dislocation."ResultsIn all, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen were case reports and 2 were retrospective case series. These included a total of 19 total hip arthroplasties, which were divided into 2 groups: studies dealing with early IPD after attempted closed reduction and those dealing with early IPD with no history of previous attempted closed reduction. Early IPD was reported in 15 patients after a mean follow-up of 3.2 months (2.9 SD) in the first group and in 4 patients after a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (9.9 SD) in the second group.ConclusionsBased on the current data, most cases have been preceded by an attempted closed reduction in the setting of outer, large articulation dislocation, perhaps indicating an iatrogenic etiology for early IPD. Recognition of this possible failure mode is essential to its prevention and treatment.
| S-EPMC5585769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the increased use of dual-mobility cups (DMCs) in total-and revision hip arthroplasties, surgeons can expect an increase of known and new complications. During routine follow-up, we observed an asymptomatic patient with an intraprosthetic-dislocation (IPD) and elevated levels of serum metal ions (1.8 ppb of cobalt and 28.0 ppb of chromium). Revision surgery was inevitable. Perioperative metallosis and severe wear of the metal shell and metal femoral head supported the IPD. Literature showed that the modularity of the DMC can result in increased serum metal ions, create excessive wear, and possibly affect implant survival. Our case and review of the literature may form an argument not to consider DMC for primary cases. Furthermore, we advise yearly clinical and radiological follow-up and, on indication, metal ion testing for DMCs.
| S-EPMC6470350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInstability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA.MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint.ResultsOf the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P = .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P = .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P = .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P = .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P = .059).ConclusionBoth CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.
| S-EPMC8661104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Dual mobility (DM) has been used in primary total hip arthroplasty recently for their low dislocation rates, low revision rates, and improved patient functional outcomes. We compared 2 DM systems, anatomic dual mobility (ADM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) and modular dual mobility (MDM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ), to determine differences in dislocation rates, revision rates, and patient outcome scores. Methods:The study was a single-center matched retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty surgery with an ADM or MDM system by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2017. Demographics, operative details, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve to compare survival time between groups was collected as well. Results:Five hundred seventy-four patients were included in the study with 287 patients matched in each group with mean 2.86 years of follow-up. The dislocation rate in each cohort was 0%, the acetabular-specific revision rate was 0%, and in each cohort, overall revision rate in each cohort was 1.7%. In general, patient-reported outcomes were similar for each group (Harris Hip Score Pain (P = .919), Harris Hip Score Function (P = .736), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (P = .139), Pain Visual Analog Scale (P = .146), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (P = .99), University of California, Los Angeles (P = .417), and Harris Hip Score Total (P = .136). There was a slight clinically insignificant increase in hip flexion between the cohorts favoring the ADM group (98.6 ± 9.8 vs 94.0 ± 9.7, P < .001). Conclusions:Both DM systems had similar patient-reported outcomes that were quite favorable. At 2.86 years of follow-up, neither the ADM nor MDM systems demonstrated dislocation, and both had low acetabular-specific and overall revision rates in this matched cohort study.
| S-EPMC6920720 | biostudies-literature