Although the incidence of total hip dislocation has decreased, it still remains a major problem particularly if recurrent. The actual incidence is around 1–2% but it has been documented as the leading cause for hip revision in the United States. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, technical issues of leg length inequality, incorrect offset, and poor implant position should be addressed surgically and the abnormality corrected. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, the articulation is preferably converted to a more stable articulation, with constrained sockets and dual mobility being the choices. In my experience, dual mobility articulations remain an excellent option for recurrent hip dislocation and its use is increasing significantly. It provides improved hip stability and data have demonstrated good success with recurrent hip dislocation. However, with use of the modular variety of dual mobility which is needed for acetabular cup fixation with screw augmentation, dissimilar metals are placed in contact (titanium socket and cobalt chrome liner insert) which potentially can pose a fretting or corrosion problem in longer term outcomes. Constrained sockets of the tripolar configuration provide another option which is useful in those patients with severe abductor dysfunction or insufficiency. Constrained sockets can also be cemented into the existing shell in cases where there is a well-fixed cup and cup removal may lead to significant bone loss and a need for complex acetabular reconstruction. It is important to remember that there are two types of constrained sockets, tripolar and focal constraint. Results with the tripolar constrained socket have been significantly better than the focal constraint variety which adds a polyethylene rim piece to the liner. In a mid-term follow up (2–9 years) of 116 constrained tripolar sockets, recurrent dislocation was only 3.3%. In papers reporting on focal constrained sockets, recurrent dislocation was in the 9–29% range. There continues to be a role for constrained sockets and selection of implant type has made a difference in ultimate outcome

Although the incidence of total hip dislocation has decreased, it still remains a major problem particularly if recurrent. The actual incidence is around 1–2% but it has been documented as the leading cause for hip revision in the United States. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, technical issues of leg length inequality, incorrect offset, and poor implant position should be addressed surgically and the abnormality corrected. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, the articulation is preferably converted to a more stable articulation, with constrained sockets and dual mobility being the choices. In my experience, dual mobility articulations remain an excellent option for recurrent hip dislocation and its use is increasing significantly. It provides improved hip stability and data have demonstrated good success with recurrent hip dislocation. However, with use of the modular variety of dual mobility which is needed for acetabular cup fixation with screw augmentation, dissimilar metals are placed in contact (titanium socket and cobalt chrome liner insert) which potentially can pose a fretting or corrosion problem in longer term outcomes. Constrained sockets of the tripolar configuration provide another option which is useful in those patients with severe abductor dysfunction or insufficiency. Constrained sockets can also be cemented into the existing shell in cases where there is a well-fixed cup and cup removal may lead to significant bone loss and need for complex acetabular reconstruction. It is important to remember that there are two types of constrained sockets, tripolar and focal constraint. Results with the tripolar constrained socket have been significantly better than the focal constraint variety which adds a polyethylene rim piece to the liner. In a mid-term follow up (2–9 years) of 116 constrained tripolar sockets, recurrent dislocation was only 3.3%. In papers reporting on focal constrained sockets, recurrent dislocation was in the 9–29% range. There continues to be a role for constrained sockets and selection of implant type has made a difference in ultimate outcome

Introduction. Revision surgery is generally recommended for recurrent dislocation following Total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, dislocation following revision THA continues to remain a problem with further dislocation rates upto 28% quoted in literature. We present early results of one of the largest series in U.K. using dual mobility cemented acetabular cup for recurrent hip dislocation. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated 40 patients where revision of hip replacement was performed using cemented dual mobility acetabular prosthesis for recurrent dislocations from March 2006 till August 2009 at our district general hospital by a single surgeon (senior author). The series comprised of 13 men and 27 females with average age of 73.4 years (49-92). The mean follow-up period was 23 months. (36 months –6 months). All the hips that were revised had 3 or more dislocations, some them more than 10 times. The cause of dislocation was multifactorial in majority of cases including acetabular component malpositioning mainly due to loosening and wear. A cemented dual mobility cup was used in all cases. In six cases the femoral stem was also revised. Results. At mean follow up of 26 months none of the revised THA had dislocated nor did they have any features of instability. No patients were lost for follow up. Clinically and radiologically there were no features of loosening of the acetabular component. Discussion. The dual mobility cup appears to be a reliable method in treatment for recurrent total hip dislocations. Although our early results are encouraging with no loosening of acetabular components a further evaluation at longer follow- up is recommended

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

Controversy has existed for decades over the role of fretting-corrosion in modular CoCr heads used with stems of CoCr vs Ti6Al4V. Since retrieval data on taper performance remains scant, we report here an18-year survivorship of a Ti6Al4V: CoCr combination (APR design; Intermedics Inc). Unique to this study were the threaded profiles present on both stem and head tapers (Fig. 1). This female patient was revised for pain, osteolysis and recurrent hip dislocation at 17 years, 10 months. A prior MPE hip replacement performed for her severely dysplastic right hip had lasted 11 years. At this 2nd revision, the 28 mm CoCr head was found dislocated posteriorly and superiorly. Metallosis was evident in the tissues. The polyethylene liner showed extensive rim damage on both anterior and posterior aspects. The neck of her APR Revision stem (Intermedics Inc) had worn through the polyethylene rim and impinged on the metal cage. The cage was found loose, the liner had disassociated, and the peri-trochanteric areas were compromised by massive osteolysis. The femoral stem and head were removed together without disassembly. The femoral stem and acetabular construct were replaced by an ARCOS revision system using 36 mm head with a Freedom cup (cemented to Max-Ti cage; Biomet Inc.). The complete femoral neck and head were bi-valved assembled in horizontal plane for direct imaging by interferometry and SEM (Fig. 1a). After sectioning the head separated from the stem. Quantitative imaging used 1 to 5 regions with 6-replicate measurements per region and differentiation into contact and non-contact zones (Fig. 1b). Visual corrosion mapping (3) was recorded digitally in 4 anatomical views (Figs 1b–f). The thread profile on contact zone inside the head (Fig. 2a) had a pitch of approximately 40 μm and a peak-to-valley depth of 4 μm overall (Fig. 2b profile section of thread: PV = 2 μm). The thread profile on stem trunnion (Fig. 3a) had a pitch of approximately 125 μm and a peak-to-valley depth of 3.5 μm overall (Fig. 2b profile section of thread: PV = 1 μm). Thus the stem trunnion thread was much coarser than the head. Overall corrosion grading was judged very mild. Overall we were satisfied that this Ti6Al4V: CoCr combination taper junction with threaded interfaces had performed very well for 18 years. Nevertheless, our visual grading was subject to opinion and thus unrewarding. The continuing project will quantify the contacting and non-contacting regions of head and stem (Fig. 1b)