Abstract
Dual mobility (DM) is most often used by surgeons to reduce instability in high risk patients. NJR data on DM has not demonstrated a reduction in all cause revision and has reported an increase in revision for peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF). The aim of our study was:
-
Report outcome of DM used in high-risk patients including non-revision re-operations (dislocation & PPF).
-
Comparison with conventional bearing THA (cTHA) with local, national and NJR benchmarking data.
-
Retrospective cohort assessment of falls risk for patients receiving DM.
Prospective F/U of a DM implant since 2016 and enrolled into Beyond Compliance (BC). Primary outcome measure all-cause revision with secondary outcome including any re-operation and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). All patients were risk stratified and considered high risk for instability. Complications were identified via hospital records, clinical coding linkage, NJR and BC. Benchmarking data for comparison was obtained from same data sources we also considered all B type PPF that occurred with cemented polished taper stem (PTS).
159 implants in 154 patients with a mean age 74.0 years and a maximum F/U of 6.7 years. Survivorship for all-cause revision 99.4% (95% CI 96.2–99.8). One femoral only revision. Mean gain in OHS 27.4. Dislocation rate 0.6% with a single event. Patients with a PTS rate of Type B PPF 2.1% requiring revision/fixation. Compared to cTHA this cohort was significantly older (74.0 vs 68.3 years), more co-morbidity (ASA 3 46.5% vs 14.4%) and more non-OA indications (32.4% vs 8.5%). Relative risks for dislocation 0.57 (95%CI 0.08–4.1) and PPF 1.75 (95%CI 0.54–5.72). Every patient had at least one risk factor for falling and >50% of cohort had 4 or more risk factors using NICE tool.
The selective use of DM in high-risk patients can reduce the burden of instability. These individuals are very different to the “average” THA patient. A “perfect storm” is created using a high-risk implant combination (DM & PTS) in high-risk falls risk population. This re-enforces the need to consider all patient and implant factors when deciding bearing selection.
