There are several clinical scenarios to consider cementing an acetabular liner into a secure cementless shell including cases of: 1) inadequate capturing mechanism, 2) damaged locking mechanisms, 3) unavailability of the mating polyethylene liner, 4) instability following debridement for wear, 5) instability at the time of femoral side revision, and 6) recurrent dislocation. The last two situations are common scenarios for cementing a constrained liner into a secure shell. Technique includes: 1) scoring the shell in cases with no screw holes or polished inner shells, 2) scoring the acetabular liner in a “spider web” pattern, 3) pressurizing cement into the shell, and 4) inserting a liner that allows 2mm of cement mantle. Results of Cementing Constrained Liner Into Secure Cementless Shell: Callaghan et al. JBJS 2004. Thirty-one hips at 2–10 year follow-up. Two of 31 failed. Technical considerations: do not cement proud and do not cement into a malpositioned shell; Haft et al. J Arthroplasty 2002. Seventeen hips with minimum 1 year follow-up. One of 17 failed. Technical considerations: do not cement proud. Results of Cementing Non-Constrained Liners Into Secure Cementless Shell: Beaule et al. JBJS 2004. Thirty-two hips at mean 5.1 year avg f/u. Four components revised for loosening; Callaghan et al. CORR 2012. Thirty-one hips at mean 5.3 year f/u. No revisions

Fully constrained liners are used to treat recurrent dislocations or patients at high risk after total hip replacements. However, they can cause significant morbidities including recurrent dislocations, infections, aseptic loosening and fractures. We examine long term results of 111 patients with tripolar constrained components to assess their redislocation and failure rate. The purpose of this study was to assess survivorship, complications and functional outcomes at a minimum 10 years after the constrained tripolar liners used in our institute. We retrospectively identified 111 patients who had 113 revision tripolar constrained liners between 1998 and 2008. Eighty-nine were revised due to recurrent dislocations, 11 for pseudotumor with dysfunctional abductors, and 13 for periprosthetic infection with loss of soft tissue stabilizers. All patients had revision hip arthroplasty before the constrained liner was used: 13 after the first revision, 17 after the second, 38 after the third, and 45 had more than 3 revisions. We extracted demographics, implant data, rate of dislocations and incidence of other complications. Kaplan Meier curves were used to assess dislocation and failure for any reason. WOMAC was used to assess quality of life. At 10 years, the survival free of dislocation was 95.6% (95%CI 90- 98), and at 20 years to 90.6% (95% CI 81- 95.5). Eight patients (7.1%) had dislocations of their constrained liners: 1 patient had simultaneous periprosthetic infection identified at the time of open reduction, and 1 patient sustained stem fracture 3 months prior to the liner dislocation. At 10 years, the survival to any further surgery was 89.4% (95% CI 82–93.8), and at 20 years, this was 82.5 (95% CI 71.9–89.3). Five patients (4.4%) had deep infection: 4 of these had excision arthroplasty due to failure to control infection, while 1 patient was treated successfully with debridement, exchange of mobile components and intravenous antibiotics. Two patients (1.8%) had dissociated rings that required change of liner, ring and head. Two patients (1.8%) had periprosthetic femoral fractures that were treated by revision stems and exchange of constrained liners. The mean WOMAC functional and pain scores were 66.2 and 75.9 of 100, respectively. Constrained tripolar liners in our institute provided favourable results in the long term for recurrent dislocation hip arthroplasty with dysfunctional hip stabilizers. Infection in these patients can prove to be difficult to treat due to their poor soft tissue conditions from repeated surgeries. Comparing long terms results from other types of constrained liners is essential to evaluate these salvage liners

Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasties in the United States. We have advocated identifying the primary cause of instability to plan appropriate treatment (Wera, Della Valle, et al., JOA 2012). Once implant position, leg length, and offset have been optimised and sources of impingement have been removed, the surgeon can opt for a large femoral head, a dual mobility articulation or a constrained liner. Given the limitations of constrained liners, we have looked to dual mobility articulations as an alternative, including its use in patients with abductor deficiency. We retrospectively compared a consecutive series of revision THA that were at high risk for instability and treated with either a constrained liner or a dual mobility articulation. At a minimum of two years, there were ten dislocations in the constrained group (10/43 or 23.3%) compared to three in the dual-mobility group (3/36 or 8.3%; p = 0.06). With repeat revision for instability as an endpoint, the failure rate was 23% for the constrained group and 5.5% for the dual mobility group (p = 0.03). We have also performed a systematic review of the published literature on the use of dual mobility in revision THA. Of the 3,088 hips reviewed, the dislocation rate was 2.2%, the risk of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% and overall survivorship was 96.6% at 5 years. Dual mobility articulations offer anatomic sized femoral heads that greatly increase jump distance, without many of the negatives of a constrained liner. While dual mobility is associated with its own concerns and problems (including intraprosthetic dislocation and wear) our initial results suggest that they are a viable alternative to a constrained liner, even in the most challenging situations

In the revision situation in general and for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function. Even with the newer options available, dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed (Wera et al). Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations, in the lower demand patient, tripolar constrained liners provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations, tripolar with constraint remains the option we utilise in many cases. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well positioned acetabular shell. We cement a tripolar constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes, score liner in spider web configuration, all one or two millimeters of cement mantle. Results: Constrained Tripolar Liner - For Dislocation: 56 Hips; 10 year average f/u; 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Constrained Tripolar Liner - For Difficult Revisions: 101 hips; 10 year average f/u; 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips; 3.6 year average f/u (2–10 years); 2 of 31 failures. We, like others, are trying to define cases where dual mobility will be as successful or more successful than tripolar constrained liners

Constrained liners are a tantalizing solution to both prevent and treat instability, as they markedly increase the force needed for a dislocation to occur. They have, however, several important negatives that the surgeon must consider before entertaining their use including: Increased stresses at the implant bone interface which can increase the risk of loosening or cause catastrophic failure in the early post-operative period; Decreased range of motion with a greater risk of impingement; and Usually require an open reduction if they dislocate or otherwise fail. Given the limitations of constrained liners, we have looked to dual mobility articulations as an alternative to constrained liners in the past five years in our practice, including patients with abductor deficiency. We retrospectively compared a consecutive series of revision THA that were at high risk for instability and treated with either a constrained liner or a dual mobility articulation. Indications for both groups included abductor insufficiency, revision for instability, or inadequate intra-operative stability when trialing. Forty-three hips were reviewed in the constrained group (mean follow-up 3.4 years) and thirty-six in the dual-mobility group (mean follow-up 2.4 years). The rate of failure was compared using a Fisher's exact test with a p-value of < 0.05 considered significant. At a minimum of two years, there were 10 dislocations in the constrained group (10/43 or 23.3%) compared to 3 in the dual-mobility group (3/36 or 8.3%; p = 0.06). There were 15 repeat revisions in the constrained group (10 for instability, 4 for infection, and 1 broken locking mechanism) compared to 4 in the dual mobility group (2 mechanical failures of cemented dual mobility liners with dislocation and 2 for infection); 34.9% vs. 11.1% (p = 0.01). With repeat revision for instability as an endpoint, the failure rate was 23% for the constrained group and 5.5% for the dual mobility group (p = 0.03). Mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved from 45 to 76 points in the constrained liner group, and from 46 to 89 points in the dual-mobility group. Dual mobility articulations offer anatomic sized femoral heads that greatly increase jump distance, without many of the negatives of a constrained liner. While dual mobility is associated with its own concerns and problems (including intra-prosthetic dislocation and wear) our initial results suggest that they are a viable alternative to a constrained liner, even in the most challenging situations

Recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a complex, multifactorial problem that has been shown to be the most common indication for revision THA. At our center, we have tried to approach the unstable hip by identifying the primary cause of instability and correcting that at the time of revision surgery. Type 1:. Malposition of the acetabular component treated with revision of the acetabular component and upsizing the femoral head. Type 2:. Malposition of the femoral component treated with revision of the femur and upsizing the femoral head. Type 3:. Abductor deficiency treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility bearing. Type 4:. Soft tissue or bony impingement treated with removal of impingement sources and upsizing the femoral head. Type 5:. Late wear of the bearing treated with bearing surface exchange and upsizing the femoral head. Type 6:. Unclear etiology treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility articulation. These may be patients with abnormal spino-pelvic motion. The most common etiologies of instability in our experience include cup malposition (Type 1) and abductor deficiency (Type 3). We reviewed 75 hips revised for instability and at a mean 35.3 months 11 re-dislocations occurred (14.6%). Acetabular revisions were protective against re-dislocation (p<0.02). The number of previous operations (p=0.04) and previously failed constrained liners (p<0.02) were risk factors for failure. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with revisions for other etiologies having a success rate of 90%. Although instability can be multifactorial, by identifying the primary cause of instability, a rational approach to treatment can be formulated. In general the poorest results were seen in patients with abductor deficiency. Given the high rate of failure of constrained liners (9 of the 11 failures were constrained), we currently are exploring alternatives such as dual mobility articulations. Our early experience with dual mobility suggests improved results when compared to constrained liners

In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). We have considered constrained liners in some of these cases. However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation situation specifically it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 10–15% have been reported following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient, constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate- term follow-up. Hence in these situations tripolar constrained liners remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well- positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes, score liner in spider web configuration, all one or two millimeters of cement mantle. Results. Constrained Dual Mobility Liner. For Dislocation: 56 Hips, 10 yr average f/u, 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. For Difficult Revisions:101 hips, 10 yr average f/u, 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips, 3.6 yr average f/u (2–10 years), 2 of 31 failures

Recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a complex, multifactorial problem that has been shown to be the most common indication for revision THA. At our center, we have tried to approach the unstable hip by identifying the primary cause of instability and correcting that at the time of revision surgery. Type 1: Malposition of the acetabular component treated with revision of the acetabular component and upsizing the femoral head. Type 2: Malposition of the femoral component treated with revision of the femur and upsizing the femoral head. Type 3: Abductor deficiency treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility bearing. Type 4: Soft tissue or bony impingement treated with removal of impingement sources and upsizing the femoral head. Type 5: Late wear of the bearing treated with bearing surface exchange and upsizing the femoral head. Type 6: Unclear etiology treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility articulation. The most common etiologies of instability in our experience include cup malposition (Type 1) and abductor deficiency (Type 3). We reviewed 75 hips revised for instability and at a mean 35.3 months, 11 re-dislocations occurred (14.6%). Acetabular revisions were protective against re-dislocation (p<0.02). The number of previous operations (p=0.04) and previously failed constrained liners (p<0.02) were risk factors for failure. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with revisions for other etiologies having a success rate of 90%. Although instability can be multifactorial, by identifying the primary cause of instability, a rational approach to treatment can be formulated. In general, the poorest results were seen in patients with abductor deficiency. Given the high rate of failure of constrained liners (9 of the 11 failures were constrained), we currently are exploring alternatives such as dual mobility articulations. Our early experience with dual mobility suggests improved results when compared to constrained liners

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

Recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a complex, multifactorial problem that has been shown to be the most common indication for revision THA. At our center, we have tried to approach the unstable hip by identifying the primary cause of instability and correcting that at the time of revision surgery. Type 1: Malposition of the acetabular component treated with revision of the acetabular component and upsizing the femoral head. Type 2: Malposition of the femoral component treated with revision of the femur and upsizing the femoral head. Type 3: Abductor deficiency treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility bearing. Type 4: Soft tissue or bony impingement treated with removal of impingement sources and upsizing the femoral head. Type 5: Late wear of the bearing treated with bearing surface exchange and upsizing the femoral head. Type 6: Unclear etiology treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility articulation. The most common etiologies of instability in our experience include cup malposition (Type 1) and abductor deficiency (Type 3). We reviewed 75 hips revised for instability and at a mean 35.3 months 11 re-dislocations occurred (14.6%). Acetabular revisions were protective against re-dislocation (p<0.015). The number of previous operations (p=0.0379) and previously failed constrained liners (p<0.02) were risk factors for failure. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with revisions for other etiologies having a success rate of 90%. Although instability can be multifactorial, by identifying the primary cause of instability, a rational approach to treatment can be formulated. In general the poorest results were seen in patients with abductor deficiency. Given the high rate of failure of constrained liners (9 of the 11 failures were constrained), we currently are exploring alternatives such as dual mobility articulations

Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasties in the United States. Hence, there is great interest in maximising stability to prevent this complication. Highly crosslinked polyethylene has allowed us to increase femoral head size, without a clinically important increase in wear. As femoral head size increases, stability is augmented, secondary to a decrease in component-to-component impingement, which is theoretically eliminated at head sizes greater than 36mm in diameter (however osseous impingement can still occur). Larger heads sizes also greatly increase the “jump distance” required for the head to dislocate (in an appropriately positioned cup) and eliminate the need for skirts. Hence, large heads have become the mainstay for preventing and treating instability in contemporary practice. Large heads, however, have been shown to have poor performance in patients with abductor insufficiency. Constrained liners are a tantalising solution to both prevent and treat instability, as they markedly increase the force needed for a dislocation to occur. They have, however, several important negatives that the surgeon must consider before entertaining their use including: . –. Increased stresses at the implant bone interface which can increase the risk of loosening or cause catastrophic failure in the early post-operative period. –. Decreased range of motion with a greater risk of impingement. –. Usually require an open reduction if they dislocate or otherwise fail. Given the limitations of constrained liners, we have moved to dual mobility articulations in most situations where we would have used a constrained liner in the past, including patients with abductor deficiency. These articulations offer anatomic sized femoral heads that greatly increase the jump distance, without many of the negatives of a constrained liner. While dual mobility is associated with its own concerns and problems (including intraprosthetic dislocation and wear) our initial results suggest that they are a viable alternative to a constrained liner, even in the most challenging situations

In the revision situation, there are times where larger heads are just not enough to obtain and maintain stability. The two most relevant times that this is the case is in patients with very lax tissues, or in patients with insufficient or absent soft tissues, especially abductor mechanisms. In addition, in cases where a revision is being performed for dislocation and components looked well-positioned, constrained liners have been extremely beneficial in our hands. Constrained acetabular liners have been available for close to two decades. Two basic types of liners are available. The type first developed by Joint Medical Products was the SROM constrained liner which captured the femoral head with a locking ring in the polyethylene. These liners may have better results with larger head sizes because the hip can be taken through a larger range of motion (with larger head sizes) before the locking ring is stressed. The second type of constraining liner was developed by Osteonics (Stryker). It consisted of a tripolar replacement which is constrained by a locking ring in the outer polyethylene of the device. Indications for constrained liners include patients undergoing primary arthroplasty who are low demand and have dementia or hip muscle weakness or spasticity. Indications for constrained liners in the revision situation include cases with previously failed operations for instability, elderly low demand patients with instability, cases with poor or absent hip musculature, and cases with well positioned acetabular and femoral components and with hip instability. In this last scenario we cement the liners into fixed shells. Our results at average 10-year follow-up in 101 hips, demonstrate a 6% failure of the device. Four hips were revised for acetabular loosening and four hips for femoral loosening. One additional hip was revised for acetabular osteolysis. Considering the difficulty of the cases we consider these results to be quite encouraging. At average 3.9 year follow-up of 31 cases where the liner was cemented into the secure shell only one case failed by dislodgement of the liner and one case by fracture of the locking mechanism. Our experience has led to the following technical recommendation: (1) if cementing the component score the liner and make sure it is contained within the shell (2) avoid inserting the liner into a grossly malpositioned shell (3) avoid positioning the elevated rim of the liner into a position where impingement might occur and (4) avoid placing the shell and constrained liner in cases with massive acetabular allografts unless additional fixation, i.e. cages, are utilized. Especially in the elderly, these liners are our components of choice for many pre-operative and intra-operative cases of instability

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 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

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

In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options, available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes, score liner in spider web configuration, all one or two millimeters of cement mantle. Results: Constrained Dual Mobility Liner – For Dislocation: 56 Hips, 10 year average follow-up, 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. For Difficult Revisions: 101 hips, 10 year average follow-up, 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips, 3.6 year average follow-up (2–10 years), 2 of 31 failures

In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease. However, in the revision situation, in general, and in revision for recurrent dislocation situations specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed [Della Valle, Sporer, Paprosky unpublished data]. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, and instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes; score liner in spider web configuration; all one or two millimeters of cement mantle. Results. Constrained Dual Mobility Liner. For Dislocation: 56 Hips 10 yr average f/u, 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. For Difficult Revisions: 101 hips 10 yr average f/u, 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips 3.6 yr average f/u (2–10 years), 2 of 31 failures

Patients with neuromuscular disease and imbalance present a particularly challenging clinical situation for the orthopaedic hip surgeon. The cause of the neuromuscular imbalance may be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic disorders include those in which the hip is in development, such as cerebral palsy, polio, CVA, and other spinal cord injuries and disease. This can result in subluxation and dislocation of the hip in growing children, and subsequent pain, and difficulty in sitting and perineal care. Extrinsic factors involve previously stable hips and play a secondary role in the development of osteoarthritis and contractures in later life. Examples of extrinsic factors are Parkinson's disease, dyskinesis, athetosis, and multiple sclerosis. Goals of treatment in adults with pain and dysfunction in the setting of neuromuscular imbalance are to treat contractures and to perform salvage procedures to improve function and eliminate pain. Treatment of patients with neuromuscular imbalance may include resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone), arthrodesis, or total hip arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty is typically reserved for patients that are non-ambulatory, or hips that are felt to be so unstable that arthroplasty would definitely fail due to instability. In modern times arthrodesis has limited use as it negatively impacts function and self-care in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Total hip arthroplasty has the ability to treat pain, relieve contractures, and provide improved function. Due to the increased risk of instability, special considerations must be made during primary total hip arthroplasty in this patient cohort. Risk of instability may be addressed by surgical approach, head size, or use of alternative bearing constructs. Posterior approach may have increased risk of posterior dislocation in this patient group, particularly if a posterior capsular repair is not possible due to the flexion contractures and sitting position in many patients. Surgeons familiar with the approaches may utilise the anterolateral or direct anterior approach judicially. Release of the adductors may be performed in conjunction with primary total hip arthroplasty to help with post-operative range of motion and to decrease risk of instability. In a standard bearing, the selected head size should be the largest that can be utilised for the particular cup size. Rigorous testing of intra-operative impingement, component rotation, and instability is required. If instability cannot be adequately addressed by a standard bearing, the next option is a dual mobility bearing. Multiple studies have shown improved stability with the use of these bearings, but they are also at risk for instability, intraprosthetic dislocation, and fretting and corrosion of the modular connections. Another option is a constrained liner. However, this results in reduced range of motion, and an increased risk for mechanical complications of the construct. The use of a constrained liner in a primary situation should be limited to the most severe instability cases, and the patient should be counseled with the associated risks. If total hip arthroplasty results in repeated instability, revision surgery or Girdlestone arthroplasty may be considered

Instability after total hip arthroplasty is the most common indication for revision arthroplasty and can be difficult to treat. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes associated with the use of a constrained acetabular component as a treatment for instability after hip arthroplasty. We reviewed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 149 arthroplasties, that had been performed with use of a single design of constrained acetabular component between 2007 and 2012 at a single institution. Patient demographics and case specific data were collected The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess continuous variables. Categorical variables were examined using the Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test when appropriate. Survival probability was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The mean age at time of index surgery was 70 years, 65% were female, and mean BMI was 26.3. The average number of previous surgeries was 3.6. The constrained liner was cemented into a well-fixed cup in 40 hips (20%). In eighty-two (55%) hips the constrained component was implanted for the treatment of recurrent instability, and in sixty-seven (45%) hips it was implanted because the hips demonstrate instability during revision surgery. At an average duration of follow-up of 4.2 (2–7) years the overall revision rate was 10.6 % The constrained acetabular device eliminated or prevented hip instability in all patients except five; 3.3% had a new dislocation and six (4.0%) had failure of the retentive ring. Three revisions (2%) were performed for deep infection, and 2 (1.3%) for acetabular component loosening. Radiographic analysis revealed a non-progressive radiolucent line around the cup in 19 hips (12.7%). When stratified by patient age, survivorship for patients less than 65 years of age versus those greater than 65 years was similar. This study correlates with results of other papers in the literature looking at outcome of constrained tripolar type sockets. The focal constraint socket with a metal ring type design has a much greater failure rate (9–29%). Constrained liners remain an excellent option for hip instability in early to mid- term follow up

Introduction. Recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a complex, multifactorial problem that has been shown to be the most common indication for revision THA. The purpose of this study was to classify causes of instability and evaluate outcomes based on an algorithmic approach to treatment. Methods. Two surgeons performed 77 consecutive revisions for instability. Patients had a mean of 2 (range, 0 to 6) prior operative attempts to resolve their instability. Subjects were divided into 6 types based on the etiology of instability: I) malposition of the acetabular component, II) malposition of the femoral component, III) abductor deficiency, IV) impingement, V) late wear, or VI) unclear etiology. Types I /II were treated with revision of the malpositioned component, Type III/VI with a constrained liner, Type IV by removing sources of impingement and Type V with a liner change. Large (>36 mm) femoral heads were used routinely. Results. The causes of instability were Type I: 25 (33%); Type II: 8 (10%); Type III: 28 (37%); Type IV: 7 (9%); Type V: 5 (7%); Type VI: 3 (4%). At a mean of 32.5 months (Range, 24 to 79) 12 patients re-dislocated (15.6%). Among these 12 failures 8 (75%) were in patients with abductor insufficiency (Type III) treated with a constrained liner. Conclusions. The most common causes of instability were cup malposition and abductor insufficiency. Our treatment protocol had an 84.4% success rate. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with a revision for other etiologies having a success rate of 92%