The bone & joint journal · 2024
Monobloc dual-mobility acetabular component versus a standard single-mobility acetabular component.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lustig Sébastien, Cotte Matthieu, Foissey Constant, Asirvatham Rhody D, Servien Elvire, Batailler Cecile
Аннотация
AIMS: The benefit of a dual-mobility acetabular component (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the dislocation and complication rates when using a DMC compared to single-mobility (SM) acetabular component in primary elective THA using data collected at a single centre, and compare the revision rates and survival outcomes in these two groups.
METHODS: Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THAs using either a cementless DM or SM acetabular component were included. Indications for DMC were patients aged older than 70 years or with high risk of dislocation. All other patients received a SM acetabular component. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, patients treated for femoral neck fracture, and follow-up of less than one year. In total, 1,940 THAs were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%) and 791 SM (40.8%). The mean age was 73 years (SD 9.2) in the DMC group and 57 years (SD 12) in the SM group. Complications and revisions have been analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 41.9 months (SD 14; 12 to 134). There were significantly fewer dislocations in the DMC group (n = 2; 0.17%) compared to the SM group (n = 8; 1%) (p = 0.019). The femoral head size did not influence the dislocation rate in the SM group (p = 0.702). The overall complication rate in the DMC group was 5.1% (n = 59) and in the SM group was 6.7% (n = 53); these were not statistically different (p = 0.214). No specific complications were attributed to the use of DMCs. In the DMC group, 18 THAs (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THAs in the SM group (1.9%) (p = 0.709). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The acetabular component aseptic revision-free survival rates at five years were 98% in the DMC group and 97.3% in the SM group (p = 0.780).
CONCLUSION: The use of a monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than SM component in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of component-specific complications or revisions with DMCs in this large cohort.
METHODS: Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THAs using either a cementless DM or SM acetabular component were included. Indications for DMC were patients aged older than 70 years or with high risk of dislocation. All other patients received a SM acetabular component. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, patients treated for femoral neck fracture, and follow-up of less than one year. In total, 1,940 THAs were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%) and 791 SM (40.8%). The mean age was 73 years (SD 9.2) in the DMC group and 57 years (SD 12) in the SM group. Complications and revisions have been analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 41.9 months (SD 14; 12 to 134). There were significantly fewer dislocations in the DMC group (n = 2; 0.17%) compared to the SM group (n = 8; 1%) (p = 0.019). The femoral head size did not influence the dislocation rate in the SM group (p = 0.702). The overall complication rate in the DMC group was 5.1% (n = 59) and in the SM group was 6.7% (n = 53); these were not statistically different (p = 0.214). No specific complications were attributed to the use of DMCs. In the DMC group, 18 THAs (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THAs in the SM group (1.9%) (p = 0.709). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The acetabular component aseptic revision-free survival rates at five years were 98% in the DMC group and 97.3% in the SM group (p = 0.780).
CONCLUSION: The use of a monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than SM component in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of component-specific complications or revisions with DMCs in this large cohort.