Outcomes for cemented dual mobility cup to treat recurrent instability; A UK case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recurrent dislocation of Total Hip Replacement (THR) is often multifactorial and remains a significant surgical challenge with a significant risk of further instability. Dual Mobility Cups (DMC) have been used widely with good long term results in France with few studies in the British literature, especially assessing their use for recurrent instability. We set out to assess whether recurrent instability can be successfully treated solely with revision of acetabular component to a dual mobility cup. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected electronic database for all consecutive dual mobility cups implanted to address recurrently instability in THR. Radiological and clinical data have been analysed. RESULTS: From September 2013 to September 2017 54 dual mobility cups have been implanted, mean age 78 (range 49-97). 47 were 1st time revision procedures, 7 were following previous revisions including 5 failed PLADs. Average time post primary was 10 years (range 8 months-23 years). Twenty cases are cement in cement revisions which has become our primary technique for revision of cemented cups. Mean follow up is 1.9 years (range 6 months-5 years), 37 cases have 2 year follow up available. 8 patients have died. There have been no episodes of further instability. One patient has had reoperation for infection (1st stage revision). CONCLUSIONS: This series demonstrates satisfactory early to mid-term results for the use of dual mobility cups to treat recurrent instability. The technique is particularly useful when femoral components are well fixed and can be used with monoblock implants such as the Charnley stem. Cement in cement revision is a convenient technique and potentially reduces complications and cost. Further analysis of longer term data is required but these results suggests this could be a valid solution to a complex problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".