Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Reduced Revision Risk for Dual-Mobility Cup in Total Hip Replacement Due to Hip Fracture: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 9,040 Cases from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA)

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Ammar Jobory, Registerctr VGR, Skane University Hospital and Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
  • ,
  • Johan Karrholm, Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Dept Orthopaed, Registerctr VGR
  • ,
  • Soren Overgaard, Odense Univ Hosp, Odense University Hospital, Dept Orthopaed Surg & Traumatol, Orthopaed Res Unit, Univ Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Dept Clin Res, The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Aarhus
  • ,
  • Alma Becic Pedersen
  • Geir Hallan, Haukeland Hosp, University of Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital, Dept Orthopaed Surg
  • ,
  • Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Haukeland Hosp, University of Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital, Dept Orthopaed Surg
  • ,
  • Keijo Makela, Turku Univ Hosp, University of Turku, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol
  • ,
  • Cecilia Rogmark, Registerctr VGR, Lund University

Background: The dual-mobility acetabular cup (DMC) has an additional bearing consisting of a mobile polyethylene component between the prosthetic head and the outer metal shell. This design has gained popularity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and in primary treatment of femoral neck fractures with the anticipation of a reduced risk of THA instability. Our primary aim was to evaluate the overall revision risk of these cups on the basis of data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, and our secondary aim was to study specific revision causes including dislocation.

Methods: Propensity score matching for age, sex, fixation of the cup and stem, and the year of surgery (2001 to 2014) was used to match 4,520 hip fractures treated with a DMC to 4,520 hip fractures treated with conventional THA (control group). Competing risk regression analyses with revision or death as the end point were used. Revision was defined as a secondary surgical procedure in which any component of the implant was removed or exchanged. In addition, revision of the cup was analyzed.

Results: The DMCs had a lower risk of revision compared with conventional THA, with an adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.92). This was consistent after adjusting for surgical approach. DMCs had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation (AHR = 0.45 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.68]) but we found no difference regarding revision for deep infection. Revision of the acetabular component, both in general and due to dislocation, was more frequent with the use of conventional cups. The risk of death was higher in the DMC group (AHR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.40 to 1.59]).

Conclusions: The use of a DMC as primary treatment for hip fracture was associated with a lower risk of revision in general and due to dislocation in particular. The total number of DMCs analyzed (4,520) likely exceeds any cohort of DMC-treated fractures published to date.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume
Volume101
Issue14
Pages (from-to)1278-1285
Number of pages8
ISSN0021-9355
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

    Research areas

  • FEMORAL-NECK FRACTURES, FOLLOW-UP, ARTHROPLASTY, DISLOCATION, HEMIARTHROPLASTY, COMORBIDITY, MORTALITY

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 163118911