Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications.

Reconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs. The use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications. From 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26-94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%). Eighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2-10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58-82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85-98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26-100] at latest follow-up. The use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components. IV; retrospective cohort

Is Isolated Mobile Component Exchange an Option in the Management of Intraprosthetic Dislocation of a Dual Mobility Cup?

Intraprosthetic dislocation is a specific complication of dual mobility cups, although it occurs less frequently with the latest generations of implants. Intraprosthetic dislocation is related to long-term polyethylene wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area, leading to a snap-out of the femoral head. With the increased use of dual mobility cups, even in younger and active patients, the management of intraprosthetic dislocation should be defined according to its type. However, no previous studies, except for case reports, have described the strategy to manage long-term wear-related intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly when a dual mobility cup is not loose. This study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of intraprosthetic dislocation in this patient population and the macroscopic findings at the time of surgical revision and (2) evaluate whether isolated mobile component exchange could be an option to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. From January 1991 to December 2009, a continuous series of 5274 THAs with dual mobility cups (4546 patients; 2773 women; mean [range] age 58 years [22-87]; bilateral THA = 728) were prospectively enrolled in our institutional total joint registry. A cementless, hemispherical dual mobility cup was systematically implanted, regardless of the patient's age or indication for THA. At the latest follow-up examination, the registry was queried to isolate each occurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation, which was retrospectively analyzed regarding the patient's demographics, indication for THA, radiographs, intraoperative findings (polyethylene wear and lesion patterns on the mobile component, periarticular metallosis, and implant damage because of intraprosthetic impingement of the femoral neck), management of intraprosthetic dislocation (isolated exchange of the mobile component or revision of the dual mobility cup), and outcome. At a mean (range) follow-up duration of 14 years (3-26), 3% of intraprosthetic dislocations (169 of 5274) were reported, with a mean (range) time from THA of 18 years (13-22). Intraprosthetic dislocation occurred predominantly in younger men (mean [range] age at THA, 42 years [22-64] versus 61 years [46-87]; p < 0.001, and sex ratio (male to female, 1:32 [96 male and 73 female] versus 0.62 [1677 male and 2700 female]; p < 0.001) in patients with intraprosthetic dislocation and those without, respectively, but was not influenced by the indication for THA (105 patients with intraprosthetic dislocation who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 64 with other diagnoses versus 3146 patients without who underwent THA for primary hip osteoarthritis and 1959 for other diagnoses (p = 0.9)). In all patients with intraprosthetic dislocation, a macroscopic analysis of the explanted mobile component revealed circumferential polyethylene wear and damage to the chamfer and retentive area, with subsequent loss of retaining power for the femoral head. Nine percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (16 of 169 patients with intraprosthetic dislocations) were associated with aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup and were managed with acetabular revision without recurrence at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 7.5 years (5-11). Ninety-one percent of intraprosthetic dislocations (153 of 169) were pure, related to wear of the mobile component chamfer and retentive area without aseptic loosening of the dual mobility cup, and managed with isolated mobile component exchange. Intraprosthetic dislocation recurred in 6% (nine of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up interval of 3 years (2-4.5). Additionally, severe premature polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup occurred in 12% of patients (19 of 153) at a mean (range) follow-up duration of 1.5 years (0.5-3). A failure rate of 18% (28 of 153 patients undergoing isolated mobile component exchange) was reported within 5 years after isolated mobile component exchange to manage intraprosthetic dislocation occurring with a well-fixed dual mobility cup metal shell. The two modes of failure were early recurrence of intraprosthetic dislocation or severe premature metallosis-related polyethylene wear of the mobile component with loosening of the dual mobility cup. Acetabular revision with synovectomy should remain the standard procedure to manage intraprosthetic dislocation, particularly if periarticular metallosis is present. The exception is intraprosthetic dislocation occurring in elderly or frail patients, for whom a conventional acetabular revision procedure would be associated with an unjustified surgical or anesthetic risk. Level II, prognostic study

Adjusting mean arterial pressure alarms improves the time spent within blood pressure targets in patients with septic shock: A quasi-experimental study

International audienceBACKGROUND: Norepinephrine is the first-line vasoactive drug in septic shock. As underdosages or overdosages can be harmful for patients, it seems useful to maintain the mean arterial pressure (MAP) within preset bounds. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess whether adjusted MAP alarms could improve MAP control in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental before-and-after study. During two consecutive periods, data on MAP control were obtained from patients with septic shock (n = 50/period) treated with norepinephrine over more than 24 h. The norepinephrine administration protocol, including prescription of the MAP target range (e.g., 65-75 mmHg), was identical during the two periods. During the first period (control group), the preset alarms of the monitor were used (i.e., low and high systolic blood pressure alarms set at 90 and 160 mmHg, respectively). During the second period, adjusted MAP alarms were implemented, with upper and lower bounds corresponding to the prescribed MAP target range (MAP-Alarm group). The primary end point was the percentage of time outside the desired MAP target range during the first 24 h of norepinephrine infusion. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. The primary end point was significantly lower in the MAP-Alarm group than in the control group (25 ± 13% versus 51 ± 18%, respectively; p \textless 0.01). MAP was higher than the target 14 ± 11% of the time in the MAP-Alarm group versus 37 ± 17% in the control group (p \textless 0.01) and lower than the target 11 ± 9% of the time in the MAP-Alarm versus 21 ± 22% in the control group (p \textless 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the dose of norepinephrine, duration of norepinephrine administration, and survival. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adjusting MAP alarms to the desired MAP target range could dramatically improve the percentage of time spent within MAP targets in patients with septic shock but does not reduce exposure to norepinephrine