Objectives. The annual incidence of hip fracture is 620 000 in the European Union. The cost of this clinical problem has been estimated at 1.75 million disability-adjusted life years lost, equating to 1.4% of the total healthcare burden in established market economies. Recent guidance from The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that research into the clinical and cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a treatment for hip fracture is a priority. We asked the question: can a trial investigating THA for hip fracture currently be delivered in the NHS?. Methods. We performed a contemporaneous process evaluation that provides a context for the interpretation of the findings of WHiTE Two – a randomised study of THA for hip fracture. We developed a mixed methods approach to situate the trial centre within the context of wider United Kingdom clinical practice. We focused on fidelity, implementation, acceptability and feasibility of both the trial processes and interventions to stakeholder groups, such as healthcare providers and patients. Results. We have shown that patients are willing to participate in this type of research and that surgeons value being part of a team that has a strong research ethos. However, surgical practice does not currently reflect NICE guidance. Current models of service delivery for hip fractures are unlikely to be able to provide timely total hip arthroplasty for suitable patients. Conclusions. Further observational research should be conducted to define the population of interest before future interventional studies are performed. Cite this article: C. Huxley, J. Achten, M. L. Costa, F. Griffiths, X. L. Griffin. A process evaluation of the WHiTE Two trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with and without dual mobility component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur: Can a trial investigating total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture be delivered in the NHS? Bone Joint Res 2016;5:444–452. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2015-0008.R1

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility will be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. At least one center reports that dual mobility outperforms 40mm femoral heads in revision arthroplasty. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation, revision of failed metal-on-metal resurfacing or total hips, unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are concerns of elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. Total hip surgeons no longer use conventional polyethylene, autologous blood donation, or a hemovac drain; now constrained components join these obsolete techniques! In 2018, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, is the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility will be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. At least one center reports that dual mobility outperforms 40mm femoral heads in revision arthroplasty. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, total hips, unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are concerns of elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. Total hip surgeons no longer cement Charnley acetabular components, use conventional polyethylene, autologous blood donation, or a drain; now constrained components join these obsolete techniques! In 2017, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, is the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. New components have been released for use in North America over the past four years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. Some surgeons in USA suggest routine use in primary hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility is to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Recent biomechanical data suggests that, in a 3D CT scan-cadaver hip model, there is no difference in range of motion between a 36mm head and an ADM dual mobility component sizes 50–56mm. There is little wear data on dual mobility components, except from one implant manufacturer. It is feared that there is a “3rd articulation” in dual mobility components—the routine impingement of the femoral neck against the polyethylene femoral head. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for these dual mobility components at short- to medium-term follow-up times. There are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intra-prosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data. Big femoral heads (36mm and 40mm) articulating with highly cross-linked, e-beam, remelted, polyethylene are a better choice in primary total hip arthroplasty, to decrease the frequency of dislocation in “high risk” patients. Although the risk of early dislocation was 4% in “high risk” patients, there was no recurrence, no revision, and no late first dislocation. Until further long-term results are available, caution is advised in the routine use of dual mobility components in primary total hip arthroplasty

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. New components have been released for use in North America over the past eight years and additional modular designs will be forthcoming. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. However, at least one center reported failure of dual mobility if the abductor mechanism is absent. There are important concerns with dual mobility, including late polyethylene wear causing intra-prosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data with most designs. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, total hips, large head unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are more recent concerns of iliopsoas tendonitis, elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. However, in 2016, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, may be the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. The first such device was introduced for primary total hip arthroplasty by Bousquet in the 1970s, thus, the “French connection”. Dual mobility components have been released for use in North America over the past five years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series and the Swedish hip registry have shown satisfactory results for this indication at short- to medium-term follow-up times. However, there are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intraprosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data. These components are an important option in the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are more recent concerns of possible iliopsoas tendinitis, elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intraprosthetic dislocation following attempted closed reduction. However, a dual mobility component may now be the preferred solution in revision surgery for recurrent hip dislocation

Background:. Dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty have been successfully in use in Europe for greater than 25 years. However, these implants have only recently obtained FDA approval and acceptance among North American arthroplasty surgeons. Both decreased dislocation rate and decreased wear rates have been proposed benefits of dual mobility components. These components have been used for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at high risk for dislocation, total hip arthroplasty in the setting of femoral neck fracture, revision for hip instability, and revision for large metal-on-metal (MoM) hip articulation. The literature for the North American experience is lacking. Purpose:. We report indications, short term outcomes, and complications of a series of subjects who received dual mobility outcomes at one institution. Study Design:. Consecutive subjects who received dual mobility total hip arthroplasty components from February 2010 and April 2013 were identified. Charts were retrospectively reviewed for surgical indications, comorbidities, component sizes, and perioperative complications including infection, dislocation, mechanical failure, and reoperation. Results:. 86 hips in 83 subjects underwent total hip arthroplasty or revision total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility components. There were 56 primary total hips and 30 revision total hips. Indications included small acetabular components in the setting of AVN (13 hips), DDH (12 hips) or severe inflammatory arthritis (5 hips), femoral neck fracture (5 hips), intraoperative instability (6 hips), recurrent postoperative instability (5 hips), and revision of large MoM articulations in the setting of failed hip resurfacing (10 hips) or failed MoM total hip arthroplasty (6 hips). Mean follow up was 1 year (3 months to 3.3 years). There were no complications in the primary total hip group. In the revision total hip group, only one hip dislocated and this was in a patient with familial dysautonomia and insensitivity to pain. One subject underwent reoperation for acute prosthetic joint infection. No other complications were encountered. Overall dislocation rate was 1.1% and overall complication rate was 2.2%. Conclusions:. These results closely mirror that of the European literature. Dual mobility articulations in total hip arthroplasty have a low short term complication rate in this cohort and provide a simple solution to difficult cases. Indications for these implants include primary and revision total hip arthroplasty in patients at high risk for instability and revision of large MoM implants including hip resurfacing

Background. Revision surgery for failed metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing (HR) has been a challenge. Previous studies have reported high failure and complication rates, including dislocation, infection, aseptic loosening and lower patient satisfaction. Options for revision depend on the integrity and stability of the femoral and acetabular components. When both components fail, full revision is required; however, when the acetabular component remains well fixed and oriented, only the isolated femoral component revision can be performed. Dual mobility components can be utilized to match the size to the inner diameter of the metal cup. With the dual mobility implant, the morbidity and complications associated with cup revision are avoided while maintaining a natural femoral head size and potentially increasing range of motion and stability postoperatively compared to standard THA. Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate short- to mid-term results of revision THA after failed metal-on-metal THA or HR using the dual mobility device. Study Design. Retrospective case series with prospective follow-up. Methods. A cohort of consecutive patients who underwent revision THA for failed MOM THA or HR utilizing a dual mobility device with a minimum follow-up of a year was identified. Charts were retrospectively reviewed for surgical indications, comorbidities, concomitant procedures, cup size, inner head size, outer head size, and perioperative complications, including infection, dislocation, mechanical failure and reoperation. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and SF-12 questionnaires were collected prospectively to assess functional outcomes after THA revision with a dual mobility component. Results. Fifteen consecutive patients (16 hips) underwent revision surgery utilizing a dual mobility component. Six hips were indicated for failed metal-on-metal THA and 10 for failed HR. The mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 12–29 months) and the mean VAS scores decreased from 8.9 preoperatively to 3.8 postoperatively (p < 0.01). The mean mHHS score increased from 26.9 preoperatively to 57.8 postoperatively (p < 0.05). A statistically significant improvement in the mean SF-12 scores was also noted (p < 0.05). Complications consisted of two patients with residual chronic pain. No dislocations, fractures, or infections were observed. Conclusion. Single component revision THA for failed MOM THA or HR utilizing a dual mobility device is an effective and relatively simple procedure for a complex problem

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. New components have been released for use in North America over the past three years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several small retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at short- to medium-term follow-up times. However, there are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intra-prosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data. These components are an important option in the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, and salvage of failed constrained liners. Until further long-term results are available, caution is advised in the routine use of dual mobility components in primary or revision total hip arthroplasty

Instability is the most common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Since THA requires arthrotomy of the hip and replacement with a femoral head that is smaller than the normal hip, instability following THA is always a potential concern. Many factors contribute to the development of instability after THA including: restoration of normal anatomy, implant design, component position, surgical approach and technique, and numerous patient related factors. Recently, the role of spinal mobility and deformity has been shown to have a significant effect on risk of dislocation after THA. The long held guidelines for component positioning or so called “safe zone” described by Lewinnek have also been questioned since most dislocations have been shown to occur in patients whose components are positioned within this “safe” range. In the early post-operative period, dislocation can occur prior to capsular and soft tissue healing if the patient exceeds their peri-operative range of motion limits. Closed reduction and abduction bracing for 6 weeks may allow for soft tissue healing and stabilization of the hip. It is important to try and identify the mechanism of dislocation since this can affect the technique of closed reduction, how the patient is braced following reduction and what may need to be addressed at the time of revision if dislocation recurs. Closed reduction and bracing may be effective in patients who have a previously well-functioning, stable THA who suffer a traumatic dislocation after the peri-operative period. Despite successful closed reduction, recurrent dislocation occurs in many patients and can be secondary to inadequate soft tissue healing, patient noncompliance or problems related to component positioning. Patients who incur more than 2 dislocations should be considered for revision surgery. Prior to revision surgery, an appropriate radiographic evaluation of the hip should be performed to identify any potential mechanical/kinematic issues that need to be addressed at the time of revision. Typically this involves plain radiographs, including a cross table lateral of the involved hip to assess acetabular version, but may also involve cross-sectional imaging to assess femoral version. Patients with soft tissue pseudotumors frequently have significant soft tissue deficiencies that are not amenable to component repositioning alone and require use of constrained or dual mobility components. In general, “limited revisions” consisting of modular head and liner exchange with insertion of a lipped liner and larger, longer femoral head rarely correct the problem of recurrent instability, since component malposition that frequently contributes to the instability is not addressed. Similarly, insertion of a constrained liner in a malpositioned cup is associated with a high rate of implant failure and recurrent dislocation since impingement contributing to the instability is not addressed. In patients who fail closed management and have a history of recurrent instability, we have found the treatment paradigm described by Wera, et al. to be very helpful in the management of the unstable THA. Several studies have shown that tripolar type constrained liners appear to perform considerably better than locking ring type constrained liners. As a result, dual mobility implants are becoming more widely utilised in patients with abductor and other soft tissue deficiencies, hip instability of uncertain etiology and patients with increased risk factors for instability undergoing primary THA. Early results with dual mobility components have been shown to have a low rate of failure in high instability risk revision THAs. These devices do have several unique potential complications and their use should be limited to patients with significantly increased risk of dislocation and instability

BACKGROUND. The most common salvage of a failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is to remove both the femoral and acetabular resurfacing components and perform a total hip replacement. The other choices are to perform an acetabular or femoral only revision. A one or two piece acetabular component or a polyethylene bipolar femoral component that matches the retained metal resurfacing acetabular component is used. The considerations in favor of performing a one component resurfacing revision are maintaining the natural femoral head size, limiting the surgical effort for the patient and surgeon, and bone conservation. There are often favorable cost considerations with single component revision surgery. The reasons for femoral component revision are femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening and an adverse reaction to metal wear debris. Performing a femoral component only revision requires a well fixed and well oriented acetabular component. Acetabular revision is most often performed for an adverse reaction to metal wear debris or loosening. METHODS. 81 acetabular revisions and 46 femoral revisions were evaluated 4 to 14 years after surgery. 83% of patients had their initial surgery at outside institutions. The mean age was 46 and 65% of patients were women. A two piece titanium backed polyethylene component was used in 44 patients and a one or two piece metal component was used in 37. A dual mobility femoral prosthesis mated to a retained metal acetabular component was used for the femoral revisions and no conversions to a metal-on-metal total hip replacement were performed. We selected polyethylene acetabular components for patients with adverse reactions to metal wear debris if their femoral component was less than 48 mm or if there was no matching metal acetabular component available for their femoral component. We used dual mobility components for femoral loosening, femoral neck fractures and adverse reactions to metal wear debris in patients with well-fixed and well oriented metal acetabular components. Dual mobility components were also used if there are any concerns about the femoral component or in some older patients. We performed one component revisions rather than conversion to total hip replacement on 88% of patients presenting with failed resurfacing prostheses. RESULTS. There were no failures with polyethylene acetabular components. There were two failures due to ongoing adverse metal reactions in patients receiving metal revision acetabular components. There was one failure with a dual mobility prosthesis due to accelerated polyethylene wear from undetected edge loading on a retained worn metal acetabular component. There were two infections and one patient with continued pain. There were no dislocations. The average Harris Hip Score was 94. The UCLA activity score was 6 or greater for all but 4 patients. There were 6 revisions to total hip replacement. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 94%. 95% of patients rated their outcome as excellent or good. CONCLUSIONS. Failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses can be successfully revised without conversion to total hip replacement in most instances. A detailed knowledge of matching prostheses is necessary. Polyethylene prostheses for the acetabular or femoral reconstruction are often needed

Dual mobility hip arthroplasty utilizes a freely rotating polyethylene liner to protect against dislocation. As liner motion has not been confirmed in vivo, we investigated the liner kinematics in vivo using dynamic radiostereometry. 16 patients with Anatomical Dual Mobility acetabular components were included. Markers were implanted in the liners using a drill guide. Static RSA recordings and patient reported outcome measures were obtained at post-op and 1-year follow-up. Dynamic RSA recordings were obtained at 1-year follow-up during a passive hip movement: abduction/external rotation, adduction/internal rotation (modified FABER-FADIR), to end-range and at 45° hip flexion. Liner- and neck movements were described as anteversion, inclination and rotation. Liner movement during modified FABER-FADIR was detected in 12 of 16 patients. Median (range) absolute liner movements were: anteversion 10° (5–20), inclination 6° (2–12), and rotation 11° (5–48) relative to the cup. Median absolute changes in the resulting liner/neck angle (small articulation) was 28° (12–46) and liner/cup angle (larger articulation) was 6° (4–21). Static RSA showed changes in median (range) liner anteversion from 7° (-12–23) postoperatively to 10° (-3–16) at 1-year follow-up and inclination from 42 (35–66) postoperatively to 59 (46–80) at 1-year follow-up. Liner/neck contact was associated with high initial liner anteversion (p=0.01). The polyethylene liner moves over time. One year after surgery the liner can move with or without liner/neck contact. The majority of movement is in the smaller articulation between head and liner

Dual mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a known rare complication of these implants and has reportedly decreased with modern implants. The purpose of this paper is to report the diagnosis and treatment of modern DM IPD. 1453 DM components were implanted between 2010 and 2021. 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. 49 hips sustained a dislocation of the large head and 5 sustained an IPD at presentation. 6 additional IPD occurred at the time of reduction of large head. The average age was 64, 54% were female and the mean follow-up was three years. Of the 11 IPD, 8 had a history of instability, 5 had abductor insufficiency, 4 had prior lumbar fusion, and 3 were conversions from fracture. The overall IPD incidence was 0.76%. Ten of the 11 DM IPD were missed at initial presentation or at the time of reduction, and all were discharged with presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was 3 weeks. One patient died with an IPD at 5 months. A DM head was reimplanted in six, two underwent revision of the acetabular component with exchange of DM head, and four were revised to a constrained liner. The re-revision rate was 55% at a mean 1.8 years. None of the patients who underwent cup revision required subsequent re-revision while half of the constrained liners and exchange of DM heads required re-revision. The overall rate of DM dislocation or IPD is low. It is critical to identify an IPD on radiographs as it was almost universally missed at presentation or when it occurred iatrogenically. For patients presenting with IPD, the surgeon should consider acetabular revision and conversion to a constrained liner or a larger DM, with special attention to removing impinging structures that could increase the risk of re-dislocation

The increased torque required to dislocate dual mobility (DM) components may increase peri-prosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) risk. Current literature often relies on revision as an endpoint and may underestimate PPF. This study aims to review PPF rate, risks and treatment following primary DM implantation. Prospective cohort study of 549 patients following primary DM total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2013 and 2021. Collected data included demographics, indication for surgery, cortical index and PPF. 549 patients were identified with primary DM THA. Mean age was 73 years (26–96). 446 (81.2%) patients had their index surgery following hip fracture. 18 patients (3.27%) sustained a PPF. Cumulative PPF rate was 1.5% at 1-year, 2.2% at 5-years and 3.27% overall. PPF was higher in patients undergoing surgery following hip fracture (4%) vs. other indications (1%). OR 4.04 (95% CI:0.53, 30.72), p=0.219. Mean cortical index was lower in patients with PPF 0.4 (95% CI:0.36, 0.45) compared to those without 0.46 (95% CI:0.45, 0.46) p=0.029. Treatment for PPF included 10 (55.6%) open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), 7 (38.9%) revision THA and 1 conservatively managed. PPF rate following DM use is higher in our cohort than published rates. Our rates are comparable to some papers when subgroup analysis of older patients and cemented taper slip stems are considered. PPF risk with DM may be increased in patients undergoing surgery after hip fracture or with a lower cortical index preoperatively. Over half of PPF were managed with ORIF and may mask PPF risk studies that report using revision as an endpoint

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first. Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the NA Hip Society requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first; the rationale for the decision with comments, and the type of THA prosthesis if “THA first” was chosen. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining. Complete responses were received from 51 members (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (± 10.4) years of practice experience. The percentages of surgeons recommending “THA first” were 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ. 2. =44.5, p<0.001). Surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. For type of THA prosthesis, dual mobility component was chosen by: 12% in scenario 1; 16% in scenario 2; 8% in scenario 3; 24% in scenario 4; and 10% in scenario 5. Surgeons were more likely to choose dual mobility in scenario 4, but with the numbers available this was not statistically significant (χ. 2. =6.6, p=0.16). The analysis of comments suggested the importance of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy. With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial even for a group of experienced hip surgeons. Outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making

Trunnion corrosion in metal-on-polyethylene THA is poorly understood, with multifactorial etiology, and the patients present with “hip pain”. We analysed the presenting symptoms and signs, intraoperative findings and the early results and complications of operative treatment. One surgeon treated 9 patients (6 male, 3 female), mean age 74 years, with the onset of symptoms at a mean of 7 years (range 3–18) after index surgery. The taper size was 12/14 in seven, 14/16 in one, and 6 degree in one hip. The preoperative mean cobalt level was 7.1 ppb (range, 2.2–12.8) and mean chromium level was 2.2 ppb (range, 0.5–5.2). MARS MRI showed fluid collection and pseudotumor in 5, fluid collection only in two, and synovitis/debris in one hip. In one patient, there was no preoperative MRI. There were a myriad of clinical presentations: thigh rash alone in one; diffuse leg pain and hip rash in one; acute pseudo-sepsis in one; iliopsoas tendinitis and diffuse rash in one; trochanteric bursitis in one; groin pain only in one; thigh-buttock pain in two; and diffuse hip pain and limp in one patient. Intraoperatively, 6 patients had liner and ceramic (or oxidized zirconium) head exchange only. Three patients had concurrent acetabular revision: one for broken locking mechanism; one because liner was unavailable, and one had acetabular loosening. The postoperative metal levels decreased in all patients: mean cobalt 0.5 ppb (range, 0–1.8) and mean chromium 0.9 ppb (range, 0–2.6). Seven patients had good pain relief and no complications. There were two major complications requiring reoperation: acute infection at 6 weeks and patient required 2-stage reimplantation; and second patient had recurrent dislocation and was revised to a dual mobility component. Trunnion corrosion in metal-on-polyethylene THA has several clinical presentations, including local skin rash, iliopsoas tendinitis, and other limb dysfunction. There should be a high index of suspicion and serum cobalt/chromium levels are recommended for diagnosis. The patients should be counseled about possible postoperative complications

Introduction. Postoperative dislocation remains a vexing problem for patients and surgeons following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is the commonest reason for revision THA in the US. Dual mobility (DM) THA implants markedly decrease the risk of THA instability. However, DM implants are more expensive than those used for conventional THA. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of DM implants compared to conventional bearing couples for unilateral primary THA using a computer model-based evaluation. Methods. A state-transition Markov computer simulation model was developed to compare the cost-utility of dual mobility versus conventional THA for hip osteoarthritis from a societal perspective (Figure 1). The model was populated with health outcomes and probabilities from registry and published data. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct costs were derived from the literature and from administrative claims data, and indirect costs reflected estimated lost wages. All costs were expressed in 2013 US dollars. Health and cost outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. The base case modeled a 65-year-old patient undergoing THA for unilateral hip osteoarthritis. A lifetime time horizon was analyzed. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Threshold, one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. Results. DM THA exhibited absolute dominance over conventional THA with lower accrued costs (US$45,960 versus $47,103) and higher accrued utility (12.08 QALY versus 11.84 QALY). The ICER was -$4,771/QALY, suggesting that DM THA is cost-saving compared to conventional THA. The cost threshold at which dual mobility implants were cost-ineffective was $25,000 (Figure 2), and the threshold at which DM implants ceased being cost-saving was $12,845. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the probability of intraprosthetic dislocation, primary THA utility, and age at index THA most influenced model results. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 90% of model iterations resulted in cost savings for DM THA (Figure 3). Discussion. Dual mobility components showed clear cost-utility advantages over conventional THA components, and DM implants are cost-saving for primary unilateral THA from a societal perspecitve. Model results suggest that DM THA need not be limited to only high-risk patients, although patient age and risk of dislocation are important determinants of its cost-utility

Introduction. The large diameter mobile polyethylene liner of the dual mobility implant provides increased resistance to hip dislocation. However, a problem specific to the dual mobility system is intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD), secondary to loss of the retentive rim, causing the inner head to dissociate from the polyethylene liner. We hypothesized that impingement of the polyethylene liner with the surrounding soft-tissue inhibits liner motion, thereby facilitating load transfer from the femoral neck to the liner and leading to loss of retentive rim over time. This mechanism of soft-tissue impingement with the liner was evaluated via cadaver experiments, and retrievals were used to assess polyethylene rim damage. Methods. Total hip arthroplasty was performed on 10 cadaver hips using 3D printed dual mobility components. A metal wire was sutured to the posterior surface (underside) of the iliopsoas, and metal wires were embedded into grooves on the outer surface of the liner and inner head to identify these structures under fluoroscopy. Tension was applied to the iliopsoas to move the femur from maximum hyperextension to 90° of flexion for the purpose of visualizing the iliopsoas and capsule interaction with the mobile liner. The interaction of the mobile liner with the iliopsoas was studied using fluoroscopy and direct visual observation. Fifteen retrieved dual mobility liners were assessed for rim edge and rim chamfer damage. Rim edge damage was defined as any evidence of contact, and rim chamfer damage was classified into six categories: impact ribs on the chamfer surface, loss of machining marks, scratching or pitting, rim deformation causing a raised lip, a rounded rim edge, or embedded metal debris. Results. Manipulation of the cadaver specimens through full range of motion showed liner impingement with the iliopsoas tendon in low flexion angles, which impeded liner motion. At high flexion angles (beyond 30°), the iliopsoas tendon moved away from the liner and impingement was not observed. The fluoroscopy tests using the embedded metal wires confirmed what was observed during manual manipulation of the specimen. When observing the hip during maximum hyperextension, 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion, there was obvious tenting of the iliopsoas. All retrieved components showed damage on the rim and the chamfer surface. The most common damage seen was scratching/ pitting. There was no association between presence of damage and time in vivo controlling for age and Body Mass Index (p≥0.255). Discussion. The cadaver studies showed that the mobile liner motion could be impeded by impingement with the iliopsoas tendon and hip capsule. Visual and fluoroscopic observation showed impingement of iliopsoas and hip capsule with the distal portion of the mobile liner, particularly during low flexion angles. All retrieved liners showed damage despite their limited time in vivo and despite being retrieved for reasons other than IPD. This suggests that soft-tissue impingement may inhibit liner motion routinely in vivo, resulting in load transfer from the femoral neck on to the rim of the liner. This may be an important mechanism for IPD

Instability continues to be a troublesome complication after THA and has been reported to be the main indication for revision in the United States, accounting for 22.5% of revisions. Risk factors associated with dislocation include: age of 75 years or older, body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater, alcohol abuse, and neuro-degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease. Dual-mobility articulations have become an increasingly popular option for these “at risk” primary THAs. Few studies have assessed their use in this complex patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess dislocation rate, radiographic outcomes and complications of the dual-mobility articulation in the setting of primary THA for patients at high risk for dislocation at a minimum follow up of 2 years. We retrospectively reviewed 151 dual mobility acetabular components, that had been performed using a single design (ADM Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) between 2010 and 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. The mean age at time of index surgery was 82 years (range, 73–95), 114 patients were female, and mean BMI was 26.2 kg/m2 (range, 16.1–60.9). Dislocation rate and complications associated with dual mobility cups were reviewed, along with the radiographic outcomes after an average follow-up period of 3.6 years (range, 1.9–6.1 years). The indication for hip replacement was osteoarthritis in all cases. We had one traumatic dislocation which required component revision after intraprosthetic dislocation following an attempt of closed reduction. There were no further dislocations in this cohort. No progressive radiolucencies or component positional changes were seen on radiographic assessment. At short-term follow-up dual mobility provides a stable reconstruction in patients at high risk of dislocation with excellent radiographic results. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of these reconstructions

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with post-polio residual paralysis (PPRP) is challenging. Despite relief in pain after THA, pre-existing muscle imbalance and altered gait may cause persistence of difficulty in walking. The associated soft tissue contractures not only imbalances the pelvis, but also poses the risk of dislocation, accelerated polyethylene liner wear, and early loosening.