Abstract
Introduction
Dual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) prostheses are designed to increase stability. In the setting of primary and revision THA, DM THA are used most frequently for dysplasia and instability diagnoses, respectively. As the use of DM THA continues to increase, with 8,031 cases logged in the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012–2018, characterizing in vivo damage and clinical failure modes are important to report.
Methods
Under IRB-approved implant retrieval protocol, 43 DM THA systems from 41 patients were included. Each DM THA component was macroscopically examined for standard damage modes. Clinically-relevant data, including patient demographics and surgical elements, were collected from medical records. Fretting and corrosion damage grading is planned, according to the Goldberg et al. classification system.
Results
In this 43-retrieved implant series, there were 23 female and 17 male patients (n=1, unknown), with an average body mass index of 29 (range, 19–49), and average ages at index and revision of 63 years (range, 34–80) and 64 years (range, 38–88), respectively. The average duration of implantation was 12.9 months (range, 0.1–72.0). Reasons for revision included infection (n=11, 26%), mechanical complication (n=10, 23%), intraprosthetic dislocation (n=6, 14%), periprosthetic fracture (n=5, 12%), pain (n=4, 9%), acetabular-associated loosening (n=3, 7%), unknown (n=3, 7%), hematoma (n=2, 5%), leg length discrepancy (n=1, 2%), and inflammatory reaction (n=1, 2%); some cases included multiple reasons for revision. On articular surfaces, scratching was the most commonly observed damage mode on all components, with more than 40% of acetabular cup and femoral heads showing scratching damage (Figure 1A). Abrasion, burnishing, and pitting damage were also observed in more than 10% of acetabular cup and acetabular liner components; further, approximately 20% of polyethylene acetabular liners exhibited edge deformation damage. On backside surfaces, polyethylene acetabular liners showed the greatest damage, with more than 60% of components exhibiting abrasion, scratching, or pitting damage (Figure 1B).
Conclusion
This series showed various reasons for revision as well as in vivo damage of retrieved DM systems following short-to-midterm implantation. Damage was observed on both articular and backside surfaces of the five components of DM THA. Modularity of DM THA prostheses may amplify rates of in vivo damage. Future studies are needed to confirm these results and clinical significance.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
