Next Article in Journal
Styletubation versus Laryngoscopy: A New Paradigm for Routine Tracheal Intubation
Previous Article in Journal
Elderly Patients’ Outcomes following Emergency Laparotomy—Early Surgical Consultations Are Crucial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Surgeries
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/surgeries5020014
surgeries-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dual-Mobility Cups in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Systematic Review

by
Tariq Ziad Issa
1,
Adam Pearl
2,3,*,
Emelia Moore
4,
Hannan Ahmad Maqsood
5,6 and
Khaled J. Saleh
3,7
1
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
2
Department of Emergency Medicine, HCA, Aventura, FL 33180, USA
3
Surgical Outcomes Research Institute, John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Detroit, MI 48906, USA
4
Department of Surgery, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 48109, USA
5
Department of Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
6
Department of Surgery, Medical City, Plano, TX 75075, USA
7
College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, Detroit, MI 48824, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Surgeries 2024, 5(2), 125-134; https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020014
Submission received: 16 November 2023 / Revised: 20 March 2024 / Accepted: 21 March 2024 / Published: 25 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Orthopaedic Diseases and Innovative Intervention Strategies, 2nd Volume)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Spine and hip abnormalities frequently occur together in most of the orthopedic population; therefore, both of these abnormalities impact the outcomes of the modalities that are being used. Few studies have reported reduced dislocation and revision rates with the use of dual-mobility cups (DMCs) in high-risk lumbar spine fusion (LSF) patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to clarify the relationship between pre-existing lumbar spinal fusion and the outcomes of THA with dual-mobility constructs. We systematically reviewed the current literature through several online databases following PRISMA protocol and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) to evaluate the methodological quality of the included trials. Four studies examined the feasibility and effectiveness of dual-mobility cups in patients undergoing primary THA with prior LSF. Two studies were conducted in the United States, while the other two originated in Finland and France, respectively. The included studies enrolled 284 patients. Most of these patients had instrumented fusions. Seventy-eight percent of patients received one- or two-level fusions. The average age across the studies was 68.22 and the mean body mass index was 28. No cases of postoperative DMC implant dislocations were identified. The incidence of postoperative complications was 6% (10/173), including deep venous thrombosis, periprosthetic loosening, infection, and fracture, greater trochanteric fracture, and superficial wound infections. Most included studies had some methodological limitations, with an average MINORS score of 10.5 ± 5.8. The use of dual-mobility cups in these high-risk patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty may lead to reduced dislocation rates and postoperative complications. Further long-term follow-up studies are warranted to support these findings.

1. Introduction

Disorders of the hip and spine commonly occur together, each contributing to a significant burden of pain and morbidity, along with a substantial health-care cost in the United States. An estimated 27 million U.S. adults suffer from osteoarthritis and 59 million suffer from lower back pain [1]. Together, these constitute some of the leading causes of disability around the world. Yet, the diagnosis and treatment of hip–spine-related conditions still pose a significant diagnostic challenge to providers, as the concurrent existence of hip osteoarthritis and spinal disorders is poorly understood. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and lumber spinal fusion (LSF) are both effective procedures for select patients with these combined degenerative pathologies. Nevertheless, patients who have undergone prior LSF are a known high-risk group [2,3,4]. Patients with concomitant LSF or spinal disease experience higher rates of postoperative complications, poorer postoperative outcomes, and an increased risk of dislocation and revision following primary THA [2,3,4]. While the appropriate sequence of LSF and THA is still debated, Malkani et al. report that THA dislocation is up to 106% greater among patients who undergo LSF first [3].
Recently, however, some studies have reported reduced dislocation and revision rates with the use of dual-mobility cups (DMCs) in high-risk patients undergoing primary THA [5,6,7,8]. Using DMCs in THA reduces instability and dislocation rates for several reasons. DMCs may reduce anteversion and the presumed reason for this improvement is a greater tolerance for articular impingement, along with a higher jump distance and significantly larger femoral head compared to standard cups [9,10,11]. Therefore, these cups additionally allow for greater range of motion prior to articular impingement. It also ensures a great option for a reduction in dislocation rate after a femur neck fracture, especially when placed under an anterolateral approach [12]. Risk factors for dislocation include a history of instability and abductor apparatus compromise, in which case a constrained cup is considered an alternative or other measures should be taken for compromised abductor apparatus [13]. In addition to this, some articles have reported an increased revision risk for infection after DMC-THAs, but Assi et al. concluded in their meta-analysis that DMCs reduced the risk of postoperative infection in both primary THAs and revision THAs compared to the standard cups [14,15,16]. Similarly, Prudhon stated that revisions for infections in DMC-THAs were comparable to those of fixed-cup THAs, while fixed-cup THAs were more associated with dislocations compared to DMC-THAs [17]. Additionally, in the patient population younger than 55 years, DMCs have shown improved survival benefits besides reduction in cup loosening and in prosthetic and intra-prosthetic dislocation [18]. Also, there are concerns about fretting, erosion, and long-term survivorship with DMC-THAs, but newer-generation implants have tried to reduce these concerns [19]. The survivorship and clinical/patient satisfaction in THA is also evident from a retrospective study conducted by Harvin et al. which involved 5 years of observation of patients after having prosthetic implants [20]. Rudy et al. concluded that DM systems are considered cost-effective if incremental expenditure stays within approximately USD 1023 of the conventional systems’ price, and implant failures or other complications contribute significantly to the economic aspect of these repairs [21]. It was also found that DM systems are cost-saving for revisions in younger patients, but revision cost is affected by the time horizon (cost-effective if beyond 10 years) and patient age greater than 75 years [22]. The available literature so far is based on the utilization of DMCs in patients with THAs, but still, there is a need to focus more on biomechanics/pathomechanics, designs, and complications associated with DMCs’ utilization.
While the theoretical benefits of DMCs are clear, limited studies have evaluated these new implants in patients with prior spinal surgery. Moreover, no evidence-based guidelines exist and the benefits are still unclear. Therefore, a systematic review of available evidence is essential for surgeons who treat patients with these combined pathologies. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate published outcomes on the relationship between pre-existing lumbar spinal fusion and DMC outcomes in primary THA.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Protocol

We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and fulfilled the quality guidelines as reported in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [23]. This systematic review is exempt from IRB and ethics approval because we collected and synthesized data in previously published trials in which informed consent had already been obtained by investigators.
We conducted a detailed literature search using PubMed MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine) via Ovid, Web of Science, the Cochrane database, and Science Direct databases on 1 June 2021 using Boolean operations and the following keywords: “total hip”, “dual-mobility”, “double-mobility”, “tripolar”, “arthroplasty”, “fusion”, “spine”, “complications”, and “economic impact”. References of available studies were manually examined, from which we retrieved studies meeting the inclusion criteria to ensure the inclusion of all available, relevant evidence.

2.2. Article Selection

Two independent reviewers (MA and EM) examined and analyzed article titles, article abstracts, and full-text documents for eligibility. Articles progressing to full-text review were screened for final eligibility based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria derived from our PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) question. Our PICO criteria were as follows:
  • Population: patients undergoing elective primary THA with prior lumbar spine fusion;
  • Intervention: dual-mobility cups;
  • Comparison: either other types of cups or no cups;
  • Outcome: incidence of postoperative complications.
The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized prospective trials, or retrospective observational cohort studies that were published in or translated into English with a full text and that examined the effectiveness of dual-mobility cups in patients undergoing primary THA with prior LSF. Trials not meeting the PICO criteria were excluded. Duplicate articles were removed, as were studies with unavailable data. Disagreements were reconciled after review with consultation from the senior author.

2.3. Data Collection and Data Items

Two authors (MA and EM) extracted the data from the included studies independently. Self-designed tables were generated to sort both the qualitative and quantitative data for our analysis. The extracted data variables used were as follows: (1) demographics and study characteristics (author, country of trial, year of publication, type of study, and level of evidence), (2) patient characteristics (number of patients, mean age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up period), (3) surgical characteristics (type of previous LSF and characteristics of THA), and (4) DMC characteristics (size of acetabular shell and cup).
The two reviewers (MA and EM) independently used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) framework to evaluate the methodological quality of the included non-randomized trials [24]. This index includes twelve items, and each item is scored as “0” (not reported), “1” (reported but inadequate), or “2” (reported and adequate). The level of evidence was designated for each study based on guidelines previously introduced by the American Volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 2003 [25].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Graph pad prism (version 8.0.0) was used to analyze the data. Mean, standard deviation, range, median, and interquartile range were reported. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), while categorical variables were summarized as percentages.

3. Results

3.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

Our search strategy identified 76 publications for possible inclusion. The PRISMA diagram for our protocol is displayed in (Figure 1). A manual search through the references of screened publications produced an additional four articles. After duplicates were removed, 69 full-text articles were screened for eligibility according to the inclusion criteria. After screening, 65 studies were excluded due to an irrelevant population, intervention, comparison, or outcome. After eligibility screening, four studies met the inclusion criteria. Based upon the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Evidence-Based Practice Committee, two out of four studies have level III grade evidence, while the other two are level IV. (Figure 1)

3.2. Geographical Distribution of the Included Studies

Four studies (284 patients) examined the effectiveness of DMCs in patients undergoing primary THA with prior LSF within the study period between 2019 and 2020. Two of the studies were conducted in the United States, while the other two were conducted in Europe.

3.3. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS)

There was no significant correlation between the year of publication and the total MINORS score (r2 = 0.7426). Most included studies had some methodological limitations, with an average MINORS score of 10.5, ranging from 5 to 18 (Table 1). The following parameters were most likely to receive a low score: (1) the inclusion of consecutive patients, (2) prospective collection of data: the vast majority of data were not collected according to an established protocol before beginning the study, (3) unbiased assessment of study endpoints: evaluations were not blinded, and the rationale for non-blinding was not clearly stated, (4) a follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, (5) prospective calculation of the study size: a power analysis was not performed prior to starting the study, (6) an adequate control group, (7) contemporary groups: there were some historical comparisons between control and studied groups that were not managed in same time period, (8) baseline equivalence groups: comparative groups were not similar regarding criteria other than the studied endpoints, and (9) an adequate statistical analysis: some of the included studies did not report confidence intervals nor relative risk. (Table 1)

3.4. Patient Characteristics

The four included studies followed-up 284 patients post-THA to demonstrate the incidence of complications in the setting of dual-mobility cup implantation. The average age across the included studies was 68.22 ± 1.89 years old (a range of 46–87). Sixty-four percent of the included population was female. The average body mass index (BMI) was 28 across the studies. A total of 284 patients were evaluated, and 78% of patients had received prior one- and two-level lumbar spine fusions. The majority of THA implants were modular dual-mobility cups, although this was only reported by two studies [7,8]. (Table 2)

3.5. Patient Outcomes with DMCs

Radiographic outcome measurements of the DMC implants were reported by three studies (Table 3). Chalmers et al. specifically reported that mean acetabular cup inclination was 44° (ranging from 30° to 57°) and anteversion was 24° (ranging from 12° to 40°). A total of 78 (90%) and 48 (55%) of acetabular cups were within the Lewinnek safe zone for inclination and anteversion, respectively [7]. Dagneaux et al. reported that mean anteversion and inclination among DMC acetabular components were 13° and 46°, respectively [6]. Moreover, 90% and 64% of acetabular components were within Lewinnek’s safe zone for anteversion and inclination measurements, respectively. Nessler et al. did not report individual measurements but noted that all acetabular components were implanted with approximately 20° of anteversion and 45° of inclination [8].
Two out of the four trials reported dislocation rates among their DMC cohort specifically [7,8]. No patients in Chalmer et al.’s cohort of 80 patients (86 THA) undergoing DMC implant following previous LSF experienced implant dislocation over a mean follow-up of 3 years [7]. Moreover, the radiographic review demonstrated no liner dissociation in any patients. In Nessler et al.’s retrospective review of 93 patients receiving DMCs, they also identified no cases of implant instability or dislocation over an average follow-up of 2.7 years [8]. While Monnonen et al. evaluated 29 patients with DMCs implanted following prior spinal surgery, they did not report the dislocation rate among this cohort. Rather, they found that larger femoral head components reduced dislocation rates in general [5]. Only Chalmers et al. reported patient-reported outcomes. They reported that DMCs were associated with significant postoperative improvement in HOOS Jr, VR-12 physical, and VR-12 mental (all p < 0.001) [7]. In patients receiving dual-mobility cup implants, the overall incidence of postoperative complications in the patient population was 10% (10/173) [7,8]. Complications included deep venous thrombosis, periprosthetic loosening, infection, and greater trochanteric fracture. (Table 3)

4. Discussion

Dislocation remains one of the most common complications after THA and a leading cause of revision, which is further exacerbated in the setting of prior lumbar surgery [4,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. One consequence of spinal fusion is an alteration in normal spinopelvic biomechanisms. The orientation of the pelvis determines the sagittal position of the sacral plate in relation to the femoral heads [30]. Forward motion (anteversion) of the pelvis decreases the pelvic tilt (PT), while retroversion increases the PT, forcing the hips to extend with an anterior imbalance when walking, in turn moving the acetabulum vertically [31]. Therefore, when going from standing to sitting, lumbar lordosis decreases, tilting the pelvis posteriorly [32]. A posterior PT increases acetabular anteversion to accommodate femoral flexion.
In fusion procedures that render a spine immobile, a change in position from standing to sitting does not allow for the compensatory increase in acetabular anteversion or PT adjustment, leading to a greater risk of anterior dislocation and impingement with an anatomically positioned THA [33]. Lewinnek et al. defined a ‘safe zone’, an important factor for maintaining THA stability, for the acetabular cup within the anatomical measurements of 5–25 degrees of anteversion and 30–50 degrees of inclination [34]. However, the exact acetabular component position suited for each patient is unknown, especially for those with prior LSF. This suggests that cup placement should be individualized based on the type of spinal deformity [8,35].
A recent meta-analysis by An et al. demonstrated that previous LSF increases the relative risk of THA dislocation and revision two- to three-fold [2]. Bedard et al., in an institutional study, demonstrated that the THA dislocation rate among THA patients with concurrent spinopelvic fusion was 20% [26]. Barry et al. demonstrated that patients with pre-existing LSF experienced worse early outcomes after primary THA including higher rates of complications (31%) and reoperation (14%) [4]. Patient-reported outcomes were also poorer in patients with prior LSF compared to those without [2]. Pre-existing lumbar disease alone has been associated with poorer patient-reported outcome measures post-THA [36]. However, the invention of DMCs has opened the door to decreasing the risk of dislocation, particularly in those with prior spinal fusion surgery.
This article provides a review of the current literature to reach a consensus as to the potential benefits of DMCs in primary THA with prior lumbar fusion. The main finding of this paper is that DMC utilization in primary THA in the setting of prior lumbar fusion may be more effective in the prevention of dislocation compared to standard cups. As seen in two included retrospective studies, dislocation rates were 0% among the study cohorts comprising 93 and 80 patients, respectively [7,8]. Additionally, the rate of postoperative complications, such as deep venous thrombosis, periprosthetic loosening, infection, and greater trochanteric fracture, was 6%. These findings are consistent with reported outcomes in current studies of patients with DMC THA [9].
The finding that the acetabular component of DMCs does not contribute to added instability suggests the benefit of the increased range of motion with DMC versus traditional implants. DMCs have two interfaces: the convex surface of the polyethylene liner with the acetabular shell that is engaged when exceeding normal range of motion, and the femoral head and the polyethylene liner that is engaged during normal range of motion [9]. As the polyethylene liner articulates, the range of motion is increased until the femoral neck impinges against the rim of the shell [10]. The head liner functions as a large femoral head, allowing for a greater range of motion, head-to-neck ratio, and jump distance before dislocation [10]. To prevent impingement, the distance between the femur and acetabulum must be increased, which is producible with DMCs [11]. Given the traditional risks associated with a history of prior lumbar fusion, these early studies demonstrating the likely benefits of DMCs in reducing THA dislocation rates indicate that further, high-quality prospective investigations are needed. It will also be important to compare DMCs to alternative implant options such as the use of high-walled polyethylene liners or constrained acetabular components.
It is important to note that not all included studies specified dislocation rates. Although most dislocations occur within 1 year after THA, late dislocations (i.e., after 5 years) were not reported in any of the included studies; thus, conclusive findings cannot be drawn and extended follow-up is needed in future studies [37]. Additionally, the period between fusion and THA varied greatly between groups. It is difficult to conclude if the time between the two procedures could influence dislocation rates and complications. One other limitation is the surgical approach. THAs in the included studies were performed via either direct anterior, posterior, superior, or posterolateral approaches, with each group having a relatively small population size for comparison. As such, we are unable to comment on the associations between the type of surgical technique and complications; moreover, there is no current study specifying the appropriate approach to be taken by surgeons when treating patients who have undergone spinal fusion. Additional limitations may be due to detectable biases in the included studies. Only studies published in English were included, although there is no evidence of systematic biases due to language restrictions in medical meta-analyses [38,39]. The inclusion of non-randomized trials in our systematic review may cause limitations in data quality. However, the Cochrane Handbook considers the inclusion of non-randomized studies in data synthesis acceptable given that the authors carefully consider the likely extent of heterogeneity between included studies when deciding whether to quantitatively pool findings [40].

5. Conclusions

Dual-mobility cups are a viable alternative to standard cups for patients with prior lumbar spine fusion who present a higher risk of THA instability. By using dual-mobility cup implants, the greater femoral head size and jump distance both provide a reduced rate of THA dislocation and instability. Furthermore, this reduces postoperative complications and may have significant health system benefits by reducing the THA revision burden. Although these data are encouraging, future high-quality, prospective, studies are needed to determine of the efficacy of DMC THAs in patients with prior spine fusion and to demonstrate the long-term stability of these implants. Special considerations should be given to the revision infection, economic burden, and prosthetic and intra-prosthetic dislocation.

Author Contributions

Study conception and design: E.M. and A.P.; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data: E.M. and A.P.; drafting of the manuscript: T.Z.I., A.P., E.M., H.A.M. and K.J.S.; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: T.Z.I., A.P., E.M., H.A.M. and K.J.S.; statistical analysis: A.P.; study supervision: K.J.S. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose and there are no financial or non-financial interests related to the work submitted for publication.

Abbreviations

Dual-mobility cups (DMC); lumbar spine fusion (LSF); total hip arthroplasty (THA); methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS); standard deviation (SD).

References

  1. Helmick, C.G.; Felson, D.T.; Lawrence, R.C.; Gabriel, S.; Hirsch, R.; Kwoh, C.K.; Liang, M.H.; Kremers, H.M.; Mayes, M.D.; Merkel, P.A.; et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: Part I. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 58, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. An, V.V.; Phan, K.; Sivakumar, B.S.; Mobbs, R.J.; Bruce, W.J. Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion is Associated with an Increased Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Malkani, A.L.; Himschoot, K.J.; Ong, K.L.; Lau, E.C.; Baykal, D.; Dimar, J.R.; Glassman, S.D.; Berry, D.J. Does Timing of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Prior to or After Lumbar Spine Fusion Have an Effect on Dislocation and Revision Rates? J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 907–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Barry, J.J.; Sing, D.C.; Vail, T.P.; Hansen, E.N. Early Outcomes of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty after Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 470–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mononen, H.; Sund, R.; Halme, J.; Kröger, H.; Sirola, J. Following total hip arthroplasty: Femoral head component diameter of 32 mm or larger is associated with lower risk of dislocation in patients with a prior lumbar fusion. Bone Jt. J. 2020, 102-B, 1003–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dagneaux, L.; Marouby, S.; Maillot, C.; Canovas, F.; Rivière, C. Dual mobility device reduces the risk of prosthetic hip instability for patients with degenerated spine: A case-control study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Chalmers, B.P.; Syku, M.; Sculco, T.P.; Jerabek, S.A.; Mayman, D.J.; Westrich, G.H. Dual-Mobility Constructs in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients with Spinal Fusions: Our Institutional Experience. Arthroplast. Today 2020, 6, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Malkani, A.L.; Sachdeva, S.; Nessler, J.P.; Westrich, G.; Harwin, S.F.; Mayman, D.; Jerabek, S. Use of dual mobility cups in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with prior lumbar spine fusion. Int. Orthop. 2020, 44, 857–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Plummer, D.R.; Haughom, B.D.; Della Valle, C.J. Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 45, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Martino, I.; Triantafyllopoulos, G.K.; Sculco, P.K.; Sculco, T.P. Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty. World J. Orthop. 2014, 5, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Malik, A.; Maheshwari, A.; Dorr, L.D. Impingement with Total Hip Replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2007, 89, 1832–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aguado-Maestro, I.; de Blas-Sanz, I.; Sanz-Peñas, A.E.; Campesino-Nieto, S.V.; Diez-Rodríguez, J.; Valle-López, S.; Espinel-Riol, A.; Fernández-Díez, D.; García-Alonso, M. Dual Mobility Cups as the Routine Choice in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Medicina 2022, 58, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huten, D.; Fournier, Y.; Gicquel, T.; Bertho, P.; Basselot, F.; Hamadouche, M. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty with a dual-mobility cup. Matched case-control study (16 cases vs. 48 controls). Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, 1303–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Assi, C.; Mansour, J.; Prudhon, J.L.; Caton, J.; Yammine, K. Dual-mobility cups could yield lesser infections than conventional cups: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int. Orthop. 2021, 45, 1961–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schmidt, A.; Batailler, C.; Fary, C.; Servien, E.; Lustig, S. Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Efficient Strategy to Decrease Dislocation Risk. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mohaddes, M.; Cnudde, P.; Rolfson, O.; Wall, A.; Kärrholm, J. Use of dual-mobility cup in revision hip arthroplasty reduces the risk for further dislocation: Analysis of seven hundred and ninety one first-time revisions performed due to dislocation, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Int. Orthop. 2017, 41, 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Prudhon, J.L.; Desmarchelier, R.; Hamadouche, M.; Delaunay, C.; Verdier, R. Is dual mobility associated with an increased risk of revision for infection? Matched cohort of 231 cases of dual-mobility cups and 231 fixed cups. HIP Int. 2018, 28, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Viricel, C.; Boyer, B.; Philippot, R.; Farizon, F.; Neri, T. Survival and complications of total hip arthroplasty using third-generation dual-mobility cups with non-cross-linked polyethylene liners in patients younger than 55 years. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2022, 108, 103208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Patil, N.; Deshmane, P.; Deshmukh, A.; Mow, C. Dual Mobility in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Biomechanics, Indications and Complications–Current Concepts. Indian J. Orthop. 2021, 55, 1202–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Harwin, S.F.; Sodhi, N.; Ehiorobo, J.; Khlopas, A.; Sultan, A.A.; Mont, M.A. Outcomes of Dual Mobility Acetabular Cups in Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients. Surg. Technol. Int. 2019, 15, 367–370. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rudy, H.L.; Padilla, J.A.; Gabor, J.A.; Iorio, R.; Schwarzkopf, R.; Vigdorchik, J. Cost-Effectiveness of Dual Mobility and a Value-Based Algorithm of Utilization. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 50, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khoshbin, A.; Haddad, F.S.; Ward, S.; Heireamhoin, S.O.; Wu, J.; Nherera, L.; Atrey, A. A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt. J. 2020, 102-B, 1128–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.1. 2020. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.1 (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  24. Slim, K.; Nini, E.; Forestier, D.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Panis, Y.; Chipponi, J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J. Surg. 2003, 73, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wright, J.G.; Swiontkowski, M.F.; Heckman, J.D. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J. Bone Joint. Surg. Am. 2003, 85, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bedard, N.A.; Martin, C.T.; Slaven, S.E.; Pugely, A.J.; Mendoza-Lattes, S.A.; Callaghan, J.J. Abnormally High Dislocation Rates of Total Hip Arthroplasty After Spinal Deformity Surgery. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 2884–2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Perfetti, D.C.; Schwarzkopf, R.; Buckland, A.J.; Paulino, C.B.; Vigdorchik, J.M. Prosthetic Dislocation and Revision after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Lumbar Fusion Patients: A Propensity Score Matched-Pair Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 1635–1640.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Malkani, A.L.; Garber, A.T.; Ong, K.L.; Dimar, J.R.; Baykal, D.; Glassman, S.D.; Cochran, A.R.; Berry, D.J. Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Previous Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Are There More Dislocations and Revisions? J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1189–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bala, A.; Chona, D.V.; Amanatullah, D.F.; Hu, S.S.; Wood, K.B.; Alamin, T.F.; Cheng, I. Timing of Lumbar Spinal Fusion Affects Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2019, 3, e00133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Legaye, J.; Duval-Beaupère, C.; Hecquet, J.; Marty, C. Pelvic incidence: A fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur. Spine J. 1998, 7, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roussouly, P.; Pinheiro-Franco, J.L. Biomechanical analysis of the spino-pelvic organization and adaptation in pathology. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Buckland, A.J.; Burapachaisri, A.; Stekas, N.; Vasquez-Montes, D.; Protopsaltis, T.; Vigdorchik, J. Obesity Alters Spinopelvic Alignment Changes from Standing to Relaxed Sitting: The Influence of the Soft-tissue Envelope. Arthroplast. Today 2020, 6, 590–595.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Phan, D.; Bederman, S.S.; Schwarzkopf, R. The influence of sagittal spinal deformity on anteversion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lewinnek, G.E.; Lewis, J.L.; Tarr, R.; Compere, C.L.; Zimmerman, J.R. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1978, 60, 217–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dorr, L.D.; Callaghan, J.J. Death of the Lewinnek “Safe Zone”. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Blizzard, D.J.; Nickel, B.T.; Seyler, T.M.; Bolognesi, M.P. The Impact of Lumbar Spine Disease and Deformity on Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2016, 47, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bolland, B.J.; Whitehouse, S.L.; Timperley, A.J. Indications for Early Hip Revision Surgery in the UK—A Re-Analysis of Njr Data. HIP Int. 2012, 22, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Morrison, A.; Polisena, J.; Husereau, D.; Moulton, K.; Clark, M.; Fiander, M.; Mierzwinski-Urban, M.; Clifford, T.; Hutton, B.; Rabb, D. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2012, 28, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pham, B.; Klassen, T.P.; Lawson, M.L.; Moher, D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005, 58, 769–776.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6. 2019. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6 (accessed on 23 January 2022).
Surgeries 05 00014 g001
Figure 1. Search strategy identification, inclusion, and exclusion flow chart.
Figure 1. Search strategy identification, inclusion, and exclusion flow chart.
Surgeries 05 00014 g001
Table 1. Quality assessment for non-randomized studies (MINORS).
Table 1. Quality assessment for non-randomized studies (MINORS).
Quality Assessment for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS)MeanSDMINMAX
(1) A clearly stated aim1.750.512
(2) Inclusion of consecutive patients0.750.9502
(3) Prospective collection of data0000
(4) Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study1.750.512
(5) Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint1.250.512
(6) Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study11.1502
(7) Loss to follow-up less than 5%2022
(8) Prospective calculation of the study size0000
Total for non-comparative (=16)8.53.10512
(9) An adequate control group0.5102
(10) Contemporary groups0.5102
(11) Baseline equivalence analyses0.5102
(12) Adequate statistical0.5102
Total (=24)10.55.80518
SD, standard deviation; MIN, minimum; MAX, maximum.
Table 2. Study characteristics.
Table 2. Study characteristics.
AuthorCountryStudy DesignLevel of EvidencePatient NumberSex
F/M		 Use of Robotic THA Spinal Surgery Mean Age (Years)BMIFollow-Up (Months)
Nessler 2020USACase seriesIV9356/47robotic (65%)LSF663032.4
Chalmers 2020 USA Case seriesIV8057/23robotic (33%)LSF692836
Dagneaux 2019FranceCase-controlIII8249/33N/ADJD or LSF70.426N/A
Mononen 2020FinlandRetrospective III29N/AN/ALSF or Discectomy67.5N/AN/A
USA: the United States of America; F: female; M: male; DJD: degenerative joint disease; LSF: lumbar spine fusion; mm: millimeter; NA: not available; BMI: body mass index.
Table 3. Study Evaluated for Outcomes.
Table 3. Study Evaluated for Outcomes.
AuthorAcetabular ShellAcetabular Cup Type of Dual-Mobility CupAcetabular AnteversionAcetabular Inclination Dislocation Rate
Nessler 202044–62 mm36–48 mm14% ADM
86% MDM		~20°~45°0%
Chalmers 2020 52 (44–62) mm42 (36–52) mm35% ADM
65% MDM		24°44°0%
Dagneaux 2019N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Mononen 2020N/A32 mmN/A13°46°0%
ADM: anatomic dual mobility; MDM: modular dual mobility; mm: millimeter; NA: not available.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Issa, T.Z.; Pearl, A.; Moore, E.; Maqsood, H.A.; Saleh, K.J. Dual-Mobility Cups in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Systematic Review. Surgeries 2024, 5, 125-134. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020014

AMA Style

Issa TZ, Pearl A, Moore E, Maqsood HA, Saleh KJ. Dual-Mobility Cups in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Systematic Review. Surgeries. 2024; 5(2):125-134. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Issa, Tariq Ziad, Adam Pearl, Emelia Moore, Hannan Ahmad Maqsood, and Khaled J. Saleh. 2024. "Dual-Mobility Cups in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Systematic Review" Surgeries 5, no. 2: 125-134. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020014

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop