Search

Several surgical approaches could be used in hip arthroplasty or trauma surgery: anterior, anterolateral, lateral, posterior (with or without trochanterotomy), using or not an orthopedic reduction table. Subtrochanteric and extra-capsular trochanteric fractures (ECTF) are usually treated by internal fixation with mandatory restrictions on weight bearing. Specific complications have been widely described. Mechanical failures are particularly high in unstable fractures. Hip fractures are a major public health issue with a mortality rate of 12%–23% at 1 year. An alternative option is to treat ECTF by total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent decubitus complications, to help rapid recovery, and to permit immediate weight bearing as well as quick rehabilitation. However, specific risks of THA have to be considered such as dislocation or cardiovascular failure. The classical approach (anterior or posterior) requires the opening of the joint and capsule, weakening hip stability and the repair of the great trochanter is sometimes hazardous. For 15 years, we have been treating unstable ECTF by THA with cementless stem, dual mobility cup (DMC), greater trochanter (GT) reattachment, and a new surgical approach preserving capsule, going through the fracture and avoiding joint dislocation. Bombaci first described a similar approach in 2008; our trans fractural digastric approach (medial gluteus and lateral vastus) is different. A coronal GT osteotomy is performed when there is no coronal fracture line. It allows easy access to the femoral neck and acetabulum. The THA is implanted without femoral internal rotation to avoid extra bone fragment displacement. With pre-operative planning, cup implantation is easy and stem positioning is adjusted referring to the top of the GT after trial reduction and preoperative planning. The longitudinal osteotomy and trochanteric fracture are repaired with wires and the digastric incision is closed. This variant of Bombaci approach could be use routinely for hemiarthroplasty or THA in the cases of unstable ECTF. It reduces complications usually linked to this procedure. Blood loss, operating time, and pain are limited, allowing fast recovery in order to decrease morbidity and mortality.

Use of a dual-mobility acetabular cup is associated with a lower risk of dislocation compared with conventional hip implants. The seleXys® DS acetabular cup combines the advantages of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty with those of dual mobility. We performed a non-randomised, prospective study of patients receiving primary hip arthroplasty, including an uncemented seleXys® DS dual-mobility acetabular cup with hydroxyapatite coating (Mathys AG, Bettlach, Switzerland) and a cemented femoral component (Stallion femoral stem Groupe Lepine, Lyon, France). The objective of the study was to evaluate longevity of the implant and the risk of dislocation. All operations were performed by a single surgeon using a posterior approach, with patients lying in the lateral decubitus position. The stem had a modular head diameter of 22.2 mm and was cemented in all patients. A total of 53 patients were studied, and the median duration of follow-up was 78.9 months. Implant survival 6 years after surgery was 98.4% (n=47; 95% CI: 89.3-99.8). There was one revision for sepsis 29 months after surgery, and one dislocation. The results of this study appear to demonstrate excellent implant survival and a low rate of dislocation using the chosen implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]