مقایسه‌ی آرتروپلاستی معمولی هیپ‌ با روش دوحرکتی در دو مرکز آموزشی

نوع مقاله : مقاله اروجینال

نویسندگان

1 گروه جراحی ارتوپدی، دانشکده‌ی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

2 دانشکده‌ی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

10.22034/ijos.2025.243320
چکیده
چکیده
مقدمه: ایمپلنت‌های دوحرکتی (DM) به‌طور فزاینده‌ای در آرتروپلاستی کامل مفصل ران (THA) برای کاهش خطر بی‌ثباتی پس از عمل مورد استفاده قرار گرفته‌اند. بااین‌حال، شواهد مقایسه‌ی DM و آرتروپلاستی معمولی در جوامع خاورمیانه همچنان محدود است.
مواد و روش‌ها: در یک مطالعه‌ی مورد-شاهدی گذشته‌نگر بیمارانی که در دوره‌ای یک‌ساله در دو مرکز آموزشی عمل THA یک‌طرفه‌ی اولیه داشتند بررسی شدند. گروه مورد ایمپلنت دریافت کردند، درحالی‌که گروه کنترل تحت THA معمولی قرار گرفتند. همه‌ی بیماران به‌مدت یک سال پیگیری شدند. پیامدها شامل درد (مقیاس رتبه‌بندی عددی)، عملکرد مفصل ران (امتیاز هیپ‌هریس HHS) و کیفیت زندگی (EQ-5D) بود. عوارض پس از عمل نیز ثبت شد.
نتایج و بحث: از ۸۶ بیمار، ۴۲ نفر DM و۴۴ نفر پروتز معمولی داشتند. دو گروه در پیگیری یک‌ساله بهبود قابل‌توجهی در درد، عملکرد و کیفیت زندگی تجربه کردند. گروه DM در مقایسه با گروه معمولی، بهبود بیشتری در نمرات EQ-5D و HHS بالاتر پس از عمل نشان داد. دررفتگی یک مورد (۶/۴ درصد) در گروه معمولی از نظر آماری تفاوت معنی‌دار نبود. سایر عوارض بعد از عمل، ازجمله عفونت و DVT، بین گروه‌ها مشابه بودند.
نتیجه‌گیری: جراحی تعویض مفصل ران با DM با بهبود عملکرد بعد از عمل و پیامدهای کیفیت زندگی مطلوب‌تر، بدون افزایش قابل‌توجه عوارض، همراه بود. این یافته‌ها از کاربرد گسترده‌تر ایمپلنت‌های DM در THA اولیه پشتیبانی می‌کند، اگرچه مطالعات آینده‌نگر بیشتری برای ارزیابی پیامدهای بلندمدت و مقرون‌به‌صرفه بودن مورد نیاز است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Outcome of Dual Mobility in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

نویسندگان English

Mahdi Hadian 1
Mehdi Motififard 1
Maryam Karimie 2
Alireza Assadi 2
Mohammad Parhamfar 1
1 Department of orthopedic Isfahan university of medical science isfahan iran
2 Department of orthopedic isfahan university of medical science isfahan iran
چکیده English

Abstract
Introduction: Dual mobility (DM) implants have been increasingly adopted in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to reduce the risk of postoperative instability. However, evidence comparing DM and conventional THA in Middle Eastern populations remains limited.
Materials & Methods: In a retrospective case-control study the patients who had undergone primary unilateral THA in one year at two major medical centers were evaluated. The case-group received DM implants, and the control- group had conventional THA. Within a one-year follow-up, the pain (Numeric Rating Scale), hip function (Harris Hip Score), and quality of life (EQ-5D), and Postoperative complications were compared.
Results & Discussion: The 86 patients studied included 42 DM and 44 conventional THA cases. Both groups experienced significant improvement in pain, function, and quality of life at one-year follow-up. The DM group demonstrated greater improvements in EQ-5D scores and higher postoperative HHS compared to the conventional group. The only dislocation (4.6%) in the conventional-group had no statistically significance. Other postoperative complications, including infection and DVT, were comparable between the groups.
Conclusion: DM hip arthroplasty was associated with more favorable postoperative functional recovery and quality of life outcomes, without a significant increase in complications, in short-term follow-up. These findings support the broader application of DM implants in primary THA, although further prospective studies are needed to assess the long-term outcomes and also cost-effectiveness.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Total Hip Arthroplasty
Hip Prosthesis
Treatment Outcome
1.     Patil N, Deshmane P, Deshmukh A, Mow C. Dual Mobility in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Biomechanics, Indications and Complications-Current Concepts. Indian J Orthop. 2021 Oct 13; 55(5): 1202-1207. doi: 10.1007/s43465-021-00471-w. PMID: 34824721; PMCID: PMC8586128.
2.     Aguado-Maestro I, de Blas-Sanz I, Sanz-Peñas AE, Campesino-Nieto SV, 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 (Kaunas). 2022 Apr 9; 58(4): 528. doi: 10.3390/medicina58040528. PMID: 35454367; PMCID: PMC9029134.
3.     Charissoux JL, Asloum Y, Marcheix PS. Surgical management of recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Feb; 100(1 Suppl): S25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.11.008. Epub 2014 Jan 13. PMID: 24434366.
4.     Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan; 91(1): 128-33. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00155. PMID: 19122087.
5.     McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1966 May; 48(2): 245-59. PMID: 5937593.
6.     Romagnoli M, Grassi A, Costa GG, Lazaro LE, Lo Presti M, Zaffagnini S. The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2019 May; 43(5): 1071-1082. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4062-0. Epub 2018 Jul 21. PMID: 30032356.
7.     Jones CW, De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Nocon AA, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. The use of dual-mobility bearings in patients at high risk of dislocation. Bone Joint J. 2019 Jan; 101-B(1_Supple_A): 41-45. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0506.R1. PMID: 30648492.
8.     Khaje Mozafari J, Aminian A, Yeganeh A, Abolghasemian M. Dual Mobility Acetabular Cup Utilization in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mitigating Instability Risks. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2025; 39 (1): 407-413. doi: 10.47176/mjiri.39.51
9.     Caton JH, Prudhon JL, Ferreira A, Aslanian T, Verdier R. A comparative and retrospective study of three hundred and twenty primary Charnley type hip replacements with a minimum follow up of ten years to assess whether a dual mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk. Int Orthop. 2014 Jun; 38(6): 1125-9. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2313-2. Epub 2014 Apr 16. PMID: 24737147; PMCID: PMC4037498.
10.   Darrith B, Courtney PM, Della Valle CJ. Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2018 Jan; 100-B(1): 11-19. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0462.R1. PMID: 29305445.
11.   Santiago MS, Akbarpoor F, Aidar FJ, Neto JMS, de Matos Pereira Silva MVV, Darwish S, Khokar MA, Ahmed Z, Zamora FV, Madruga RETTA, Díaz-de-Durana AL, Merino-Fernandez M, da Costa Lima L, Porto ES, de Souza DT, Cipolotti R. Outcomes of dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Apr 23; 20(1): 405. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05764-6. PMID: 40270012; PMCID: PMC12016175.
12.   Batailler C, Fary C, Verdier R, Aslanian T, Caton J, Lustig S. The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2017 Mar; 41(3): 645-659. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3377-y. Epub 2016 Dec 21. PMID: 28004142.
13.   Batailler C, Lustig S, Balot E, Farizon F, Fessy MH, Philippot R. Ten to 15-Year Outcomes of Monoblock Uncemented Dual Mobility Cups: Excellent Survival Rate and Outcome in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access. 2025 Feb 21; 10(1): e24.00074. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00074. PMID: 39991112; PMCID: PMC11841846.
14.   Blakeney WG, Epinette JA, Vendittoli PA. Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: should everyone get one? EFORT Open Rev. 2019 Sep 3; 4(9): 541-547. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180045. PMID: 31598332; PMCID: PMC6771074.
15.   Heifner JJ, Keller LM, Fox YM, Sakalian PA, Corces A. The Performance of Primary Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged 55 Years and Younger: A Systematic Review. Arthroplast Today. 2023 Nov 8; 24: 101241. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101241. PMID: 38023650; PMCID: PMC10661692.
16.   Adam P, Philippe R, Ehlinger M, Roche O, Bonnomet F, Molé D, Fessy MH; French Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT). Dual mobility cups hip arthroplasty as a treatment for displaced fracture of the femoral neck in the elderly. A prospective, systematic, multicenter study with specific focus on postoperative dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 May; 98(3): 296-300. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Mar 29. PMID: 22463868.
17.   Zhu W, Feng B, Zhou T, Zhang J, Wang X, Jing Q, Weng X. The advantages and drawbacks of dual mobility acetabular cups and its clinical application. Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics. 2021; (12): 1367-1372.
18.   Laura AD, Hothi H, Battisti C, Cerquiglini A, Henckel J, Skinner J, Hart A. Wear of dual-mobility cups: a review article. Int Orthop. 2017 Mar; 41(3): 625-633. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3326-9. Epub 2016 Dec 9. PMID: 27942888.
19.   Assi C, El-Najjar E, Samaha C, Yammine K. Outcomes of dual mobility cups in a young Middle Eastern population and its influence on life style. Int Orthop. 2017 Mar; 41(3): 619-624. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3390-1. Epub 2017 Jan 10. PMID: 28074257.
20.   Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov; 63 Suppl 11: S200-7. doi: 10.1002/acr.20549. PMID: 22588745.
21.   Dargel J, Oppermann J, Brüggemann GP, Eysel P. Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014 Dec 22; 111(51-52): 884-90. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0884. PMID: 25597367; PMCID: PMC4298240.
22.   Fessy MH, Jacquot L, Rollier JC, Chouteau J, Ait-Si-Selmi T, Bothorel H, Chatelet JC. Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Contemporary Monoblock Dual-Mobility Cup in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Dec; 34(12): 2983-2991. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.026. Epub 2019 Jul 26. PMID: 31444020.
23.   Neri T, Philippot R, Klasan A, Putnis S, Leie M, Boyer B, Farizon F. Dual mobility acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty: advantages and drawbacks. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Nov; 15(11): 835-845. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2018.1538781. Epub 2018 Oct 24. PMID: 30345834.
24.   Philippot R, Neri T, Boyer B, Viard B, Farizon F. Bousquet dual mobility socket for patient under fifty years old. More than twenty year follow-up of one hundred and thirty one hips. Int Orthop. 2017 Mar; 41(3): 589-594. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3385-y. Epub 2017 Jan 16. PMID: 28091769.
25.   Parhamfar M, Hosseini A, Khashei M, Motififard M, Taravati A, Shirazinejad S, Afsharirad A, Sadeghian A, Chaleshtori AS. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Conventional Prostheses Against Dual-Mobility Prostheses in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Two Separate Groups of Patients: A Clinical Trial Study. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Sep 27; 12: 228. doi: 10.4103/abr.abr_108_23. PMID: 38073750; PMCID: PMC10699230.
26.   Achudan S, Fang C, Xiang NW, Decruz J, Kunnasegaran R. Comparing Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Displaced Neck of Femur Fractures in Elderly Patients Utilizing Dual Mobility Cups and Conventional Implants: A Single Center Retrospective Study of 129 Patients. Indian J Orthop. 2022 Nov 27; 57(1): 62-70. doi: 10.1007/s43465-022-00759-5. PMID: 36660481; PMCID: PMC9789225.
27.   Assi C, Barakat H, Mansour J, Samaha C, Yammine K. Primary total hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes of dual-mobility cups in patients at high risk of dislocation. Hip Int. 2021 Mar; 31(2): 174-180. doi: 10.1177/1120700019889031. Epub 2019 Dec 26. PMID: 31875722.