Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications.
Methods: We identified 299 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from March 2011 to July 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n = 65), dislocation (n = 58), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n = 57) were the most common reasons for index revision. MDM constructs were used in 123 cases, and LFHs were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years (28 to 93), mean BMI was 31 kg/m (18 to 55), and 45% (n = 136) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 12).
Results: The ten-year survival free of re-revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 95 to 100) in the MDM cohort and 91% (95% CI 84 to 96) in the LFH cohort, with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 7.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 40.8); p = 0.023). The ten-year survival free of any re-revision was 92% (95% CI 82 to 99%) in the MDM cohort and 84% (95% CI 74 to 90) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.9); p = 0.024). The ten-year survival free of any dislocation was 95% (95% CI 85 to 99) in the MDM cohort and 87% (95% CI 78 to 92) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.3); p = 0.028). There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.
Conclusion: In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs with a MDM construct safely and effectively lowered the risk of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and any dislocation compared to LFH at mid-term follow-up. There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0170.R1 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
High-volume hospitals do not perform better than low-volume hospitals in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of re-revision risk and mortality based on the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Acta Orthop
August 2025
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.
Background And Purpose: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a complex procedure that may benefit from centralization. We examined the association between annual hospital volume of rTHA and re-revision risk and mortality.
Methods: We included all rTHAs between 2007 and 2022 in general hospitals, registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI; n = 12,515).
Trends in Dual Mobility Cup Use and Outcomes in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Database Study.
Clin Orthop Surg
August 2025
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Background: Dual mobility cups (DMCs) have emerged as a promising option for enhancing hip stability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we aimed to determine the trends in DMC utilization, compare the outcomes of DMCs with those of conventional cups in primary THA, and assess DMC outcomes in revision THA.
Methods: We collected data on all primary and revision THAs performed from 2015 to 2022 based on procedure codes from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment database.
Minimizing Instability in Isolated Head and Liner Exchange With the Direct Anterior Approach Using a Capsular-Sparing Technique.
Arthroplast Today
August 2025
Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Department, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Background: Dislocation is a common complication after head and liner exchange. Although surgical approach has been shown to influence instability rate following primary total hip replacement, the same has not been demonstrated for head and liner exchange. The effect of additional soft tissue release to achieve exposure in revision surgery has been implicated in this finding.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe choice of bearings in revision total hip arthroplasty : rationale, algorithm, and outcome.
Bone Joint J
June 2025
Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, University Hospital Llandough, Llandough, UK.
Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the success of an algorithm designed to guide the choice of bearing based on gluteus medius deficiency to be used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods: Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure, and while bearings which offer enhanced stability are available, the indications for their use remain unclear. The integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability.
Re-revision risk of modular and monobloc revision stems after revision hip arthroplasty.
Bone Jt Open
June 2025
Charité, Center for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Center für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Aims: Modular revision stem fracture is a rare but difficult complication after hip arthroplasty revision. The purpose of this German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)-based study was to investigate whether the overall re-revision rate and the re-revision reasons of modular revision stems compared with monobloc stems are different.
Methods: A total of 291 re-revisions occurring within five years after implantation of a revision stem (n = 2,039) documented in the EPRD were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression.