Dual Mobility Implants Research Articles

Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older

BackgroundIncreasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). MethodsRevision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head. ResultsAt 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates. ConclusionThe DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Selective Use of Dual-Mobility Did Not Significantly Reduce 90-Day Readmissions or Reoperations After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundSelective use of dual mobility (DM) implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients at high dislocation risk has been proposed. However, evidence-based utilization thresholds have not been defined. We explored whether surgeon-specific rates of DM utilization correlate with rates of readmission and reoperation for dislocation. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 14,818 primary THA procedures performed at a single institution between 2011 and 2021, including 14,310 fixed-bearing (FB) and 508 DM implant constructs. Outcomes including 90-day readmissions and reoperations were compared between patients who had FB and DM implants. Cases were then stratified into 3 groups based on the attending surgeon’s rate of DM utilization (≤ 1, 1 to 10, or > 10%) and outcomes were compared. ResultsThere were no differences in 90-day outcomes between FB and DM implant groups. Surgeon frequency of DM utilization ranged from 0% to 43%. There were 48 surgeons (73%) who used DM in ≤ 1% of cases, 11 (17%) in 1% to 10% of cases, and 7 (10%) in > 10% of cases. The 90-day rates of readmission (7.3% versus 7.6% versus 7.2%, P = .7) and reoperation (3.4% versus 3.9% versus 3.8%, P = .3), as well as readmission for instability (0.5% versus 0.6% versus 0.8%, P = .2) and reoperation for instability (0.5% versus 0.5% versus 0.8%, P = .6), did not statistically differ between cohorts. ConclusionSelective DM utilization did not reduce 90-day readmissions or reoperations following primary THA. Other dislocation-mitigation strategies (ie, surgical approach, computer navigation, robotic assistance, and large diameter FBs) may have masked any benefits of selective DM use.

Projected Savings Associated with Lowering the Risk of Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Due to Dislocation in Patients with Spinopelvic Pathology.

In the United States (US), total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common hospital inpatient operation among Medicare beneficiaries and is ranked fourth when considering all payers. Spinopelvic pathology (SPP) is associated with an increased risk of THA revision (rTHA) due to dislocation. Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate the risk of instability in this population, including use of dual-mobility implants, anterior-based surgical approaches, and technology-assistance (digital 2D/3D pre-surgical planning, computer navigation, and robotic assistance). For primary THA (pTHA) patients with SPP who subsequently undergo rTHA due to dislocation, we aimed to estimate (1) target population size; (2) economic burden; and (3) 10-year projected savings to the US payer of lowering the risk of rTHA due to dislocation among pTHA patients with SPP. A budget impact analysis from the US payer perspective was undertaken using published literature; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American Joint Replacement Registry 2021 Annual Report; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services MEDPAR 2019; and National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2019. Expenditures were inflation-adjusted to 2021 US dollars using the Medical Care component of the Consumer Price Index. Sensitivity analyses were performed. The target population size in 2021 was estimated at 5040 (range, 4830-6309) for Medicare (fee-for-service plus Medicare Advantage) and 8003 (range, 7669-10,018) for all-payer. Annual rTHA episode-of-care (through 90 days) expenditures for Medicare and all-payer were $185 million and $314 million, respectively. Using a 4.14% compound annual growth rate from NIS, the estimated number of applicable rTHA procedures that will be performed from 2022-2031 was 63,419 Medicare and 100,697 all-payer. With each 10% reduction in relative risk of rTHA due to dislocation, Medicare and all-payer could save $233 million and $395 million, respectively, over a 10-year period. Among pTHA patients with spinopelvic pathology, a modest reduction in the risk of rTHA due to dislocation could achieve substantial cumulative savings to payers while improving healthcare quality.

Less groin pain with dual-mobility bearings versus fixed bearings in total hip arthroplasty.

The relationship between implant type, dual mobility (DM) or fixed bearing (FB), and postoperative groin pain remains unexplored. We examined the incidence of groin pain in DM implants and compare this to a cohort of FB THA patients. From 2006 to 2018, a single surgeon performed 875 DM THA and 856 FB THA procedures with 2.8-year and 3.1-year follow-up, respectively. Each patient received a questionnaire postoperatively and was asked if they had any groin pain (yes/no). Secondary measurements were implant characteristics such as head size, head offset, cup size, and cup-to-head ratio. Additional PROMs that were collected included: Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, Pain visual analogue scale (Pain VAS), and range of motion (ROM). The incidence of groin pain was 2.3% in the DM THA cohort and 6.3% in the FB THA group (p < 0.001). Also, low head offset (⩽0 mm) had a significant odds ratio (1.61) for groin pain in both cohorts. There was no significant difference in terms of revision rate between the cohorts (2.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.39) at the latest follow up. This study demonstrated a lower incidence of groin pain (2.3%) in patients with a DM bearing compared to a FB (6.3%) and a greater risk of groin pain with low head offset (<0 mm). As such, surgeons should try to recreate offset of the hip compared to the contralateral side to avoid groin pain.

Five-year polyethylene cup migration and PE wear of the Anatomic Dual Mobility acetabular construct.

Dual mobility implants have been successful in reducing postoperative hip dislocation but mid-term results of cup migration and polyethylene wear are missing in the literature. Therefore, we measured migration and wear at 5-year follow-up using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). A cohort of 44 patients (mean age 73, 36 female) with heterogeneous indications for hip arthroplasty but all with a high risk of hip dislocation received total hip replacement (THA) with The Anatomic Dual Mobility X3 monoblock acetabular construct and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner. RSA images and Oxford Hip Scores were obtained perioperatively and 1, 2, and 5years postoperatively. Cup migration and polyethylene wear were calculated using RSA. Mean 2-year proximal cup translation was 0.26mm (95% CI 0.17; 0.36). Proximal cup translation was stable from 1- to 5-year follow-up. Mean 2-year cup inclination (z-rotation) was 0.23° (95% CI - 0.22; 0.68) and was greater in patients with osteoporosis compared to patients without osteoporosis (p = 0.04). Using 1-year follow-up as baseline, the 3D polyethylene wear rate was 0.07mm/year (0.05; 0.10). Oxford hip scores improved 19 (95% CI 14; 24) points from mean 21 (range 4; 39) at baseline, to 40 (9; 48) 2years postoperatively. There were no progressive radiolucent lines > 1mm. There was 1 revision for offset correction. Anatomic Dual Mobility monoblock cups were well-fixed, the polyethylene wear rate was low, and the clinical outcomes were good until 5-year follow-up suggesting good implant survival in patients of different age groups and with heterogeneous indications for THA.

Inertial Tracking System for Monitoring Dual Mobility Hip Implants In Vitro.

Dual mobility (DM) implants are being increasingly used for total hip arthroplasties due to the additional range of motion and joint stability they afford over more traditional implant types. Currently, there are no reported methods for monitoring their motions under realistic operating conditions while in vitro and, therefore, it is challenging to predict how they will function under clinically relevant conditions and what failure modes may exist. This study reports the development, calibration, and validation of a novel inertial tracking system that directly mounts to the mobile liner of DM implants. The tracker was custom built and based on a miniaturized, off-the-shelf inertial measurement unit (IMU) and employed a gradient-decent sensor fusion algorithm for amalgamating nine degree-of-freedom IMU readings into three-axis orientation estimates. Additionally, a novel approach to magnetic interference mitigation using a fixed solenoid and magnetic field simulation was evaluated. The system produced orientation measurements to within 1.0° of the true value under ideal conditions and 3.9° with a negligible drift while in vitro, submerged in lubricant, and without a line of sight.

Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty: Should It Be Revised Using Dual Mobility Implants? A Retrospective Analysis from the R.I.P.O. Registry.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33-96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48-92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.

The Role of Dual-Mobility Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Dual mobility (DM) refers to a now widely available option for total hip articulation. DM implants feature a small inner head, a hard bearing, that connects via a taper fit onto the femoral trunnion. This head freely rotates but is encased inside a larger, outer polyethylene head that articulates with a smooth acetabular component. DM acetabular components are available in the form of a monoblock shell or as a liner that is impacted into a modular shell, providing a metal articulation for the polyethylene outer head. DM is designed to increase hip stability by providing the arthroplasty construct with a higher jump distance, head-to-neck ratio, and range of motion prior to impingement. The use of DM in total hip arthroplasty continues to increase in the United States for both primary and revision arthroplasty. Surgeons should be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls. Long-term data are lacking, especially for modular DM implants. Points of concern include a potential for accelerated polyethylene wear, intraprosthetic dislocation, and modular backside fretting corrosion.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants

BackgroundThe incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA. MethodsLongitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants. ResultsFor constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants. ConclusionDual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

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.

Studies comparing the use of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with conventional implants and hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures (DFNF) have reported better patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in the former, but also significant dislocation rates (6.9-13%).The total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility cup (THA-DMC) design is mechanically proven to increase the hip range of motion and jump distance to dislocation relative to conventional implants. Despite its potential benefit, clinical studies analyzing the use of THA-DMC in the treatment of DFNF in comparison to conventional THA within the Asian population are still limited. Our study aims to compare the rate of complications and functional outcomes between the 2 implants in the treatment of DFNF. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary care institution. From January 2015 to May 2020, data from 129 consecutive patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria and underwent either a THA or THA-DMC for DFNF were collected and divided into 2 groups. All patients received a standardized post-operative treatment and follow-up regime. Both groups of patients were assessed for post-operative complications such as dislocation, peri-prosthetic fractures, surgical site infections, medical complications. Their functional outcomes as well as patient-reported outcome scores were also assessed via the SF-36 score and Oxford hip score questionnaires at 6months and 1year. A total of 42 patients with dual mobility implants and 87 patients with conventional implants were recruited. There was no dislocation in the THA-DMC group while there were 4 cases (4/87, 4.6%) of dislocation in the THA group. Regarding post-operative function, both groups had comparable functional outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences between the patient-reported outcome scores (Oxford hip score and SF-36) at 6months and 1year. We report promising short-term outcomes utilizing dual mobility implants in total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of DFNFs.

Early Intraprosthetic Dislocation of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Double Mobility Implant: Case Report.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful surgery in the treatment of hip pain, but there are potential complications, of which dislocation is one of the most common. Dislocation management is a challenging problem that requires a multimodal approach, and the use of dual mobility implants is an option. We present a patient with a history of femoral neck fracture who underwent THA with a double mobility implant. On the 18 th postoperative day, after a fall to the ground, she developed prosthesis dislocation and had a complication after closed reduction, a subsequent intraprosthetic dislocation. After a radiographic diagnosis, the patient presented mechanical signs of hip flexion caused by a disassociated double mobility implant. The revision surgery was indicated, but the patient chose not to perform the necessary surgical procedure. A careful postoperative study of the radiographs revealed an eccentric femoral head and evidence of disassociated implantation in the surrounding soft tissues. Radiographs after closed reduction of intraprosthetic dislocations should be examined thoroughly.

Dual-mobility versus Fixed-bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcome Comparison.

PurposeUse of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA.Materials and MethodsAll patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes.ResultsOf the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups.ConclusionDM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA. Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

The Incidence and Temporal Trends of Dislocation After the Use of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Implants in Primary Total Hip Replacements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Observational Studies.

Dislocation after a primary total hip replacement (pTHR) remains a common cause of treatment failure. Constrained acetabular components (CACs) and dual mobility implants (DMIs) may mitigate this in patients at high risk of dislocation or with significant intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with CACs and DMIs in pTHR. Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of CACs or DMIs in pTHR were sought from Medline and Embase to September 2020. Secondary outcomes included revision surgery for dislocation and for all causes. A total of 46 studies (3 CAC and 43 DMI) comprising 582 CACs and 18,748 DMIs were included. The pooled incidence of dislocation was 1.08% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-3.72; range 0.27%-2.60%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 4.1 years for CACs, compared with 0.25% (95% CI: 0.08-0.46; range 0.00%-4.72%) over 6.2 years for DMIs. For DMIs, there was a temporal decline in dislocations from the 1980s onward, and dislocation rates remained low (<1%) until 15 years postoperatively. There were insufficient data for similar analysis of CACs. All studies were at high risk of bias. The incidence of revision for dislocation after CACs was 0.3% vs 0.1% for DMIs, and the incidence of revision for all causes after CACs was 4.8% vs 2.7% for DMIs. DMIs demonstrated a lower incidence of dislocation compared with CACs; however, there was a relative absence of CACs used in the context of pTHR in the literature. Temporal trends in dislocation have improved over time for DMIs.

Dual-Mobility Implants and Constrained Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in aseptic revision rates and survivorship between dual-mobility (DM) and constrained liners (CL) in revision THA. We reviewed a consecutive series of 2432 revision THA patients from 2008 to 2019 at our institution and identified all patients who received either a CL or DM bearing. We compared demographics, comorbidities, indications, dislocations, and aseptic failure rates between the two groups. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for failure, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with an aseptic re-revision as the endpoint. Of the 191 patients, 139 (72%) received a DM bearing, and 52 (28%) had a CL. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 months, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of dislocation (10.4% vs 14.0%, P= .667), aseptic revision (30.9% vs 46.2%, P= .073), or time to revision (3.78 vs 6 months, P= .565) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis revealed CL had no difference in aseptic re-revision rates when compared with DM (odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.52, P= .177). The survivorship analysis found no difference in aseptic failure between the groups at 12 months (P= .059). Both CL and DM bearings have high aseptic failure rates at intermediate term follow-up after revision THA. CL did show a higher risk of failure than DM bearings, but it was not statistically significant with the numbers available for this study. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for recurrent instability.

Dislocation of Total Hip Replacement in Femoral Neck Fracture: Do Surgical Approach and Dual Mobility Implant Matter?

Introduction: Total hip replacement (THR) in the neck of femur fracture in the elderly is associated with a higher risk of dislocation compared to hemiarthroplasty of hip or total hip replacement in the native hip. There is uncertainty regarding combining surgical approach, femoral head size, and the usage of single bearing or dual mobility to reduce the risk of dislocation. This study looks into the bearing of the prosthesis for posterior or lateral surgical hip approach as well as their head size to give a stable hip to these vulnerable groups of patients.Methods: Initial data were collected retrospectively from February 2017 till May 2019 from the electronic records database and clinical notes. Patients included in the study had a femoral neck fracture (age >60 years) who underwent a total hip replacement. Subsequent data were collected prospectively from June 2019 to July 2020.Results: High rate of dislocation was found with posterior approach and single bearing prosthesis. However, if dual mobility prosthesis was used while using the posterior approach the dislocation rate was very low. Also, with lateral approach and single bearing prosthesis using large femoral head size, the dislocation rate was negligible.Conclusions: We recommend a dual mobility prosthesis for posterior approach THR and lateral approach with single-bearing hip replacement with large size femoral head. The dislocation rate is low using this principle irrespective of the surgical approach.

The journey to preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty : how did we get here?

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of dual-mobility implants. As clinicians continue to pursue improved outcomes and reduced complications, these concepts will lay the foundation for future innovation in THA and ultimately improved outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(1):8-11.

Intraprosthetic Dislocation of Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Unforeseen Complication.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful and widely accepted orthopedic procedures. Instability after THA is one of the most significant postoperative complications. Dual-mobility THA components were introduced in 1974 to overcome the risk of instability by increasing the jump distance. Dual-mobility bearings couple two articulations, namely, one between a 22-28 mm prosthetic head and polyethylene liner and another larger articulation between the polyethylene liner and the metal cup. Dislocation of the polyethylene liner and the consequent direct articulation between the prosthetic head and metal cup is recognized as intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD). This mode of THA failure is specific to dual-mobility implants. Despite the reduced incidence of IPD in modern dual-mobility implants compared to the early designs, iatrogenic IPD can occur during closed reduction of dislocated polyethylene liner-metal cup articulation. IPD requires timely diagnosis and early surgical intervention to minimize the necessity of major revision surgeries. This study presents a comprehensive review for dual-mobility-bearing THA, including the history and biomechanics, and focuses on the pathomechanics, diagnosis, and management of IPD.

Rapidly destructive osteoarthritis and total hip arthroplasty: A new technique for acetabular reconstruction in the setting of extensive bone loss

We report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented with rapidly destructive osteoarthritis (RDO) of the hip that had been causing her severe pain and disability. By the time of presentation to our institution, she had a significant leg length discrepancy resulting from extensive destruction of the posterior acetabular wall, posterior column, and femoral head with a superiorly migrated femoral shaft. She underwent structural acetabular allograft augmentation of the pelvis re-enforced with a locking plate, concomitant total hip replacement with dual mobility implants, and extensive soft tissue releases to restore length to the extremity.

1220 Dual Mobility Cups in Primary and Revision Thas – A Single UK Centre Outcome Study

Abstract Aim Total Hip Arthroplasty has been challenged with instability and dislocation (5%) and restricted movements. Risks are further increased in trauma and revision cases (7-14%). Dual Mobility (DM) prosthesis is one solution to these issues and has shown to reduce the rate of dislocation in multiple USA and France studies. Its uses remain limited in the UK due to unfamiliarity. DM implants contain a small femoral head mobile within a polyethylene liner which articulates with a supra-hemispheric metallic acetabular shell. Increased coverage of the shell reduces intra-prosthetic dislocation. The highly crosslinked polyethylene helps to reduce wear while the extra arc of motion improved range of movement. Our centre started using DM prosthesis since 2018 and this study demonstrates our outcomes. Method Retrospective study of all DM replacement from January 2018 – May 2020. Allowing a minimum follow up of 6 months. Data was collected from an electronic database. Results 54 cases were identified (35 elective cases and 19 trauma cases). 34 cases were revision surgery, and 21 cases were primary arthroplasty. The average age was 75, average length of surgery was 3 hours and average stay in hospital was 9 days. No dislocation was noted in this study. All patients reported good range of movement in follow ups with no complaints of instability. Conclusions DM prosthesis provides excellent outcomes with no dislocation and good patient reported satisfaction at our center. This result is supported by various systematic reviews. The reduction of complications is also economically advantageous. Use of Dual Mobility prosthesis should be encouraged in UK.

Malseating of modular dual mobility liners.

AimsPrior studies have identified that malseating of a modular dual mobility liner can occur, with previous reported incidences between 5.8% and 16.4%. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of malseating in dual mobility implants at our institution, assess for risk factors for liner malseating, and investigate whether liner malseating has any impact on clinical outcomes after surgery.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the radiographs of 239 primary and revision total hip arthroplasties with a modular dual mobility liner. Two independent reviewers assessed radiographs for each patient twice for evidence of malseating, with a third observer acting as a tiebreaker. Univariate analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for malseating with Youden’s index used to identify cut-off points. Cohen’s kappa test was used to measure interobserver and intraobserver reliability.ResultsIn all, 12 liners (5.0%), including eight Stryker (6.8%) and four Zimmer Biomet (3.3%), had radiological evidence of malseating. Interobserver reliability was found to be 0.453 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.64), suggesting weak inter-rater agreement, with strong agreement being greater than 0.8. We found component size of 50 mm or less to be associated with liner malseating on univariate analysis (p = 0.031). Patients with malseated liners appeared to have no associated clinical consequences, and none required revision surgery at a mean of 14 months (1.4 to 99.2) postoperatively.ConclusionThe incidence of liner malseating was 5.0%, which is similar to other reports. Component size of 50 mm or smaller was identified as a risk factor for malseating. Surgeons should be aware that malseating can occur and implant design changes or changes in instrumentation should be considered to lower the risk of malseating. Although further follow-up is needed, it remains to be seen if malseating is associated with any clinical consequences.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):858–864.