Comparison of dual-mobility cup and unipolar cup for prevention of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty

41Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and purpose — Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with higher dislocation rates than primary THA. We compared the risk of dislocation within 6 months and all-cause re-revision during the whole study period using either the dual-mobility cup or the unipolar cup. Methods — We used a prospective hospital registry-based cohort including all total and cup-only revision THAs performed between 2003 and 2013. The cups used were either dual-mobility or unipolar; the choice was made according to the preference of the surgeon. 316 revision THAs were included. The mean age of the cohort was 69 (25–98) years and 160 THAs (51%) were performed in women. The dual-mobility group (group 1) included 150 THAs (48%) and the mean length of follow-up was 31 (0–128) months. The unipolar group (group 2) included 166 THAs (53%) and the mean length of follow-up was 52 (0–136) months. Results — The incidence of dislocation within 6 months was significantly lower with the dual-mobility cup than with the unipolar cup (2.7% vs. 7.8%). The unadjusted risk ratio (RR) was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.11–1.02) and the adjusted RR was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.09–0.87). The number of patients needed to treat with a dual-mobility cup in order to prevent 1 case of dislocation was 19. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for all-cause re-revision in the dual-mobility group compared to the unipolar group was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3–1.4). Interpretation — Use of a dual-mobility rather than a unipolar cup in revision THA reduced the risk of dislocation within 6 months.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gonzalez, A. I., Bartolone, P., Lubbeke, A., Dupuis Lozeron, E., Peter, R., Hoffmeyer, P., & Christofilopoulos, P. (2017). Comparison of dual-mobility cup and unipolar cup for prevention of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica, 88(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1255482

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free