The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026
The Effect of Dual Mobility Articulations on Re-Revision After Revision for Dislocation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zamzam Mazen E, Hodson Noah M, Zhu Qi, Zheng Huiyong, Hallstrom Brian R, Charters Michael A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a challenge after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study evaluated whether dual mobility (DM) acetabular constructs used during revision for instability are associated with lower rerevision rates than fixed-bearing constructs.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative identified 796 patients who underwent revision of elective primary THA for dislocation; resurfacing, conversion, and urgent cases were excluded. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) curves were compared using log-rank testing. A Cox proportional hazards frailty model analyzed time to rerevision across DM, non-DM, and constrained liner groups, adjusting for revision year/era and site-level clustering. Multivariable logistic regression served as a sensitivity analysis for odds of rerevision within two years.
RESULTS: The two-year and five-year CPRs were 12.6% (95% CI [confidence interval], 10.1 to 15.0) and 17.1% (95% CI, 14.0 to 20.0), respectively. Dual mobility constructs had significantly lower CPR than non-DM (P = 0.022). At one year, CPR was 5.1% (95% CI, 2.1 to 8.0) versus 11.3% (95% CI, 7.7 to 14.8); at two years, 7.3% (95% CI, 3.6 to 10.8) versus 14.2% (95% CI, 10.2 to 18.0). By five years, confidence intervals overlapped (12.7 versus 20.2%). On adjusted analysis, non-DM constructs had significantly higher odds of rerevision within two years (odds ratio: 2.04; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: The DM constructs are associated with significantly lower early all-cause rerevision risk following revision THA for dislocation, with absolute risk reductions of 6.2% at one year and 6.9% at two years. Later estimates are less precise due to declining at-risk counts, and definitive conclusions regarding longer-term equivalence cannot be drawn. These findings support selective DM use in high-risk patients and highlight the need for long-term surveillance.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative identified 796 patients who underwent revision of elective primary THA for dislocation; resurfacing, conversion, and urgent cases were excluded. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) curves were compared using log-rank testing. A Cox proportional hazards frailty model analyzed time to rerevision across DM, non-DM, and constrained liner groups, adjusting for revision year/era and site-level clustering. Multivariable logistic regression served as a sensitivity analysis for odds of rerevision within two years.
RESULTS: The two-year and five-year CPRs were 12.6% (95% CI [confidence interval], 10.1 to 15.0) and 17.1% (95% CI, 14.0 to 20.0), respectively. Dual mobility constructs had significantly lower CPR than non-DM (P = 0.022). At one year, CPR was 5.1% (95% CI, 2.1 to 8.0) versus 11.3% (95% CI, 7.7 to 14.8); at two years, 7.3% (95% CI, 3.6 to 10.8) versus 14.2% (95% CI, 10.2 to 18.0). By five years, confidence intervals overlapped (12.7 versus 20.2%). On adjusted analysis, non-DM constructs had significantly higher odds of rerevision within two years (odds ratio: 2.04; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: The DM constructs are associated with significantly lower early all-cause rerevision risk following revision THA for dislocation, with absolute risk reductions of 6.2% at one year and 6.9% at two years. Later estimates are less precise due to declining at-risk counts, and definitive conclusions regarding longer-term equivalence cannot be drawn. These findings support selective DM use in high-risk patients and highlight the need for long-term surveillance.