دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?
المؤلفون: Affatato S; Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica, IRCCS - Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40100 Bologna, Italy., Castiello E; Unità Operativa Complessa di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Maggiore, 40100 Bologna, Italy., Amendola L; Unità Operativa Complessa di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Maggiore, 40100 Bologna, Italy., Comitini S; Unità Operativa Complessa di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Maggiore, 40100 Bologna, Italy., Prudhon JL; Centre Osteo-Articulaire Echirolles, 38100 Grenoble, France., Tigani D; Unità Operativa Complessa di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Maggiore, 40100 Bologna, Italy.
المصدر: Materials (Basel, Switzerland) [Materials (Basel)] 2020 Apr 27; Vol. 13 (9). Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Apr 27.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article; Review
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: MDPI Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 101555929 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 1996-1944 (Print) Linking ISSN: 19961944 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Materials (Basel) Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: May 2010- : Basel, Switzerland : MDPI
Original Publication: Basel, Switzerland : Molecular Diversity Preservation International, 2008-2010.
مستخلص: Revision of large-diameter, monoblock acetabular components for both hip resurfacing arthroplasty and metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to a high amount of complications. For this reason, performing a limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component exchange has been proposed in order to limit these complications. Although DM bearing offers an easy solution avoiding the intraoperative and time-associated complications, concern about polyethylene wear and stability remains due to the difference regarding the design, the coverage angle and the clearance of the two implants. In order to evaluate the performance of this new solution with the new material to prevent the possibility of failure it is essential to conduct a review of the literature A qualitative systematic review of the literature has been conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus for English and French articles between January 2000 and October 2019 was performed, with the primary objective of finding articles about dual mobility bearing coupling with large metal-on-metal cup in the case of hip revision procedure. Various combinations of the key words were used in the search strategy. Thirteen articles with DM bearing mated with MoM cup were analyzed. Of the 130 hip revisions selected, with a follow-up from 6 to 53 months, there were a total of 14 with complications (10.77%): four true dislocations (3.08%); six intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD, 4.6%), two of which presented plastic deformation and polyethylene wear; four other complications (3.08%), included a cup osteolysis, a clicking noise, a superficial infection and a periprosthetic fracture. All the mentioned true dislocations occurred during the first month while IPDs appeared during the first two years from the index revision. In conclusion, according to the literature analyzed, we can stress that the concerns and doubts about mating a DM bearing with large MoM cup cannot be dissolved. It has been pointed out that a DM bearing is not designed for a MoM cup; it is not mechanically tested on MoM cups, which presents different clearance and coverage angles. Predictable complications may occur, such as IPD, polyethylene wear and true dislocation. These complications have been reported at an even higher rate than they were in the eighties, when the first generation of DM implants were of a lower quality of polyethylene and the characteristic of the design was less optimal than modern ones.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References: J Arthroplasty. 2016 Apr;31(4):846-9. (PMID: 26404847)
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Sep;34(9):2037-2044. (PMID: 31178386)
Int Orthop. 2015 Nov;39(11):2097-101. (PMID: 26346372)
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr;33(4):1242-1246. (PMID: 29276120)
Arthroplast Today. 2018 Apr 22;4(3):275-278. (PMID: 30186904)
Orthopedics. 2016 Sep 1;39(5):e980-3. (PMID: 27248335)
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2012 Mar;226(3):217-26. (PMID: 22558836)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1535-44. (PMID: 24464508)
Orthopedics. 2015 Jun;38(6):369-74. (PMID: 26091212)
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64. (PMID: 19622511)
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Aug;30(8):1317-23. (PMID: 25861918)
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Sep;90(9):1143-51. (PMID: 18757952)
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):231-7. (PMID: 21079954)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Feb;472(2):523-8. (PMID: 23572349)
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Jun;94(6):746-54. (PMID: 22628587)
Int Orthop. 2014 Jun;38(6):1125-9. (PMID: 24737147)
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004 May;90(3):249-55. (PMID: 15211274)
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Dec;32(12):3782-3795. (PMID: 28754580)
Int Orthop. 2018 Feb;42(2):451-454. (PMID: 29234858)
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1945-1952. (PMID: 29402714)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Feb;472(2):497-508. (PMID: 24297107)
Open Orthop J. 2016 Oct 31;10:512-521. (PMID: 27857822)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Jul;134(7):1009-15. (PMID: 24838248)
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Mar;86(2):177-84. (PMID: 15046429)
Int Orthop. 2017 Mar;41(3):475-480. (PMID: 27826763)
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):736-40. (PMID: 27235513)
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):508-512. (PMID: 31662280)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1970 Sep-Oct;72:7-21. (PMID: 5459811)
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):219-24. (PMID: 23680501)
Ann Transl Med. 2016 Apr;4(7):131. (PMID: 27162781)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jul;470(7):1932-40. (PMID: 22161085)
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 Aug;68(4):520-7. (PMID: 3733823)
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Dec;99(8):923-8. (PMID: 24176671)
JBJS Case Connect. 2013 Sep 25;3(3 Suppl 9):e951-6. (PMID: 29252340)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Aug;135(8):1177-81. (PMID: 26074168)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 May;136(5):715-21. (PMID: 26983720)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):519-26. (PMID: 22956235)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Mar;471(3):965-70. (PMID: 23054529)
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jun;29(6):1323-8. (PMID: 24444567)
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1035-1041. (PMID: 28929204)
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1972 Apr-May;58(3):229-46. (PMID: 4265757)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Mar;456:153-8. (PMID: 17065844)
Arthroplast Today. 2020 Feb 21;6(1):132-133. (PMID: 32211491)
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Jun;27(6):976-83.e1. (PMID: 22425300)
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Dec;27(10):1857-62. (PMID: 22770851)
EFORT Open Rev. 2019 Jun 3;4(6):423-429. (PMID: 31210979)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: MoM; dual mobility; hip; off label use; revision; total hip arthroplasty
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20200501 Latest Revision: 20200928
رمز التحديث: 20221213
مُعرف محوري في PubMed: PMC7254332
DOI: 10.3390/ma13092040
PMID: 32349434
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1996-1944
DOI:10.3390/ma13092040