Background. Published simulator studies for metal/UHMWPE bearings couples showed that increasing the femoral head diameter by 1 mm increases wear by approximately 10% due to increased contact area. Therefore, there are concerns about increased wear with dual mobility hip bearings. Purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was to compare wear from dual mobility hip bearings to that with traditional fixed bearings. In addition, for the dual mobility bearings, the effect of femoral head material type on the liner wear was also evaluated. Methods. The bearings selected for the study are listed in Table 1. Prior to the start of the test all liners were soaked in lubricant for 48 hours. Hip testing was performed on a Shore Western Orbital Bearing machine in the anatomically oriented position. A simulated gait profile (synchronized at +/-23° biaxial rocking motion) with a minimum/maximum 200/2000N force was applied to the bearings at frequency of 1Hz. The lubricant used for the testing was 25% bovine serum with 0.2 % sodium azide, 20 mMol EDTA and distilled water. The test was interrupted at regular intervals for gravimetric assessment of wear amount. Findings of Study. Figure 1 shows total wear at 3 Mc and wear rates (determined from the slope of the linear regression) for all the groups. At 3 Mc, dual mobility bearings with stainless steel femoral head demonstrated 5% lower wear rate than those articulated against CoCrMo femoral heads. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the observed wear rate due to the femoral head material type. The results from the study also exhibited lower wear and wear rate for dual mobility bearings compared to fixed bearings. Dual mobility bearings with CoCrMo femoral head and stainless steel femoral head demonstrated 17% and 21% lower wear rate when compared to fixed bearings. Although dual mobility bearings possess greater contact area (due to the contact between head-liner and liner-shell compared to only head-liner in fixed bearings), no such increased trend in wear was observed. Conclusions. Dual mobility hip bearings are designed to reduce the risk of dislocation and allow for increased range of motion thus improving joint function and stability. The results from the study demonstrate that dual mobility bearings have comparable wear properties when compared to fixed bearings. For figure/table, please contact authors directly

Dislocation and instability remain leading cause of failure following THA. We present a single-surgeon 10-year experience with use of Dual Mobility (DM) bearings in Primary and Revision THA using posterior approach. 127 DM bearings were implanted between September 2006 – September 2016; 102 in high-risk primary THA's and 25 revision THA's for either treatment or prevention of instability. Selection for DM bearing followed individual patient risk assessment. Criteria for use of DM bearing were presence of multiple risk factors. Mean age was 72.9 years. 100 Mono-block DM implants, 22 Modular DM implants and 5 custom-made DM devices were implanted. Revision cohort included those used in conjunction with a cage or porous metal augments. 2 dislocations (1.6%) were observed, both in the Revision group, 1 was recurrent requiring revision to constrained liner. Primary group had 2 revisions; 1 peri-prosthetic fracture and 1 deep infection. No DM bearing specific complications were observed. A constructed life table calculated survival function with endpoint set as revision for any reason demonstrated a cumulative survival of 94% at 7.4 years. In high-risk patients, DM bearings are successful at preventing and treating dislocation in THA. Primary cohort in this study all had multiple risk factors for instability but no dislocations or bearing specific complications were observed. Dislocations observed in Revision group were associated with major soft tissue deficiency. This study adds to the promising results already reported with DM THA articulations and should be considered for patients at risk of dislocation or instability. Runner Up – Best Paper Award

Aims. This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google. Methods. A cross-sectional study of consecutive adult (> 13 years) patients with musculoskeletal trauma referred as either in-patients or out-patients over a 40-day period beginning on 5 March 2020, the date of the first reported UK COVID-19 death, was performed. This time period encompassed social distancing measures. This group was compared to a group of patients referred over the same calendar period in 2019 and to publicly available mobility data from Google. Results. Orthopaedic trauma referrals reduced by 42% (1,056 compared to 1,820) during the study period, and by 58% (405 compared to 967) following national lockdown. Outpatient referrals reduced by 44%, and inpatient referrals by 36%, and the number of surgeries performed by 36%. The regional incidence of traumatic injury fell from 5.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.79 to 5.35) to 2.94 (95% CI 2.52 to 3.32) per 100,000 population per day. Significant reductions were seen in injuries related to sports and alcohol consumption. No admissions occurred relating to major trauma (Injury Severity Score > 16) or violence against the person. Changes in population mobility and trauma volume from baseline correlated significantly (Pearson’s correlation 0.749, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85, p < 0.001). However, admissions related to fragility fractures remained unchanged compared to the 2019 baseline. Conclusion. The profound changes in social behaviour and mobility during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic have directly correlated with a significant decrease in orthopaedic trauma referrals, but fragility fractures remained unaffected and provision for these patients should be maintained. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:182–189

Spinopelvic mobility describes the change in lumbar lordosis and pelvic tilt from standing to sitting position. For 1° of posterior pelvic tilt, functional cup anteversion increases by 0.75° after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Thus, spinopelvic mobility is of high clinical relevance regarding the risk of implant impingement and dislocation. Our study aimed to 1) determine the proportion of OA-patients with stiff, normal or hypermobile spino-pelvic mobility and 2) to identify clinical or static standing radiographic parameters predicting spinopelvic mobility. This prospective diagnostic cohort study followed 122 consecutive patients with end-stage osteoarthritis awaiting THA. Preoperatively, the Oxford Hip Score, Oswestry Disability Index and Schober's test were assessed in a standardized clinical examination. Lateral view radiographs were taken of the lumbar spine, pelvis and proximal femur using EOS© in standing position and with femurs parallel to the floor in order to achieve a 90°-seated position. Radiographic measurements were performed for the lumbar lordosis angle (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic-femoral-angle (PFA). The difference in PT between standing and seated allowed for patient classification based on spino-pelvic mobility into stiff (±30°). From the standing to the sitting position, the pelvis tilted backwards by a mean of 19.6° (SD 11.6) and the hip was flexed by a mean of 57° (SD 17). Change in pelvic tilt correlated inversely with change in hip flexion. Spinopelvic mobility is highly variable in patients awaiting THA and we could not identify any clinical or static standing radiographic parameter predicting the change in pelvic tilt from standing to sitting position. In order to identify patients with stiff or hypermobile spinopelvic mobility, we recommend performing lateral view radiographs of the lumbar spine, pelvis and proximal femur in all patients awaiting THA. Thereafter, implants and combined cup inclination/anteversion can be individually chosen to minimize the risk of dislocation. No predictors could be identified. We recommend performing sitting and standing lateral view radiographs of the lumbar spine and pelvis to determine spinopelvic mobility in patients awaiting THA

Introduction. There is a drive to reduce length of stay in children undergoing limb reconstruction but a reduction in community physiotherapy input and a consequent pressure to ensure children are as independent as possible prior to discharge. This study aims to look at time taken and potential factors effecting the achievement of pre-set mobility goals and length of stay in this population. Materials and Methods. Between June 2018 and November 2021 data was collated for patients who underwent limb reconstruction at Great Ormond Street hospital. 77 patients were reviewed. Data collected included type and location of lengthening device and length of stay. A modified version of the Goal Attainment Score (GAS) was used and included 3 goals which the child needed to achieve within 7 days post-operatively. Results. All children achieved their goals within the 7 days. Length of stay with intramedullary devices was shorter than with external fixators (average of 5 vs 10 days). For children with frames, including the ankle significantly increased hospital stay, whereas inclusion of the knee had no significant effect, and. Bilateral frames were associated with a longer stay. Conclusions. The use of GAS with pre-defined clinically driven goals could be considered feasible within the limb reconstruction population and possibly used for other patient groups. This data may enable us to more accurately predict length of stay in patients undergoing limb reconstruction and will provide a baseline for future comparisons of different interventions in this patient group

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

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

Treatment of recurrent dislocation: approximately: 1/3 of failures (probably higher in the absence of a clear curable cause). In the US: most popular treatment option: constrained liners with high redislocation and loosening rates in most reports. Several interfaces leading to various modes of failures. In Europe: dual mobility cups (or tripolar unconstrained): first design Gilles Bousquet 1976 (Saint Etienne, France), consisting of a metal shell with a highly polished inner surface articulating with a mobile polyethylene insert (large articulation). The femoral head is captured into the polyethylene (small articulation) using a snap fit type mechanism leading to a large effective unconstrained head inside the metal cup. With dual mobility, most of the movements occur in the small articulation therefore limiting wear from the large polyethylene on metal articulation. Contemporary designs include: CoCr metal cup for improved friction, outer shell coated with titanium and hydroxyapatite, possible use of screws to enhance primary stability (revision), cemented version in case of major bone defect requiring bone reconstruction. Increased stability obtained through an ultra-large diameter effective femoral head increasing the jumping distance. Dual mobility in revision for recurrent dislocation provided hip stability in more than 94% of the cases with less than 3% presenting redislocation up to 13-year follow-up. A series from the UK concerning 115 revisions including 29 revisions for recurrent dislocation reported 2% dislocation in the global series and 7% re-dislocation in patients revised for instability. A recent report of the Swedish hip arthroplasty register including 228 patients revised for recurrent dislocation showed 99% survival with revision for dislocation as the endpoint and 93% with revision for any reason as the endpoint. One specific complication of dual mobility sockets: intra-prosthetic dislocation (ie: dislocation at the small articulation): often asymptomatic or slight discomfort, eccentration of the neck on AP radiograph, related to wear and fatigue of the polyethylene rim at the capturing are through aggressive stem neck to mobile polyethylene insert contact (3rd articulation). Risk factors include: large and aggressive femoral neck design implants, small head/neck ratio, skirted heads, major fibrosis and periprosthetic ossifications. Current (over ?) use in France: 30% of primary THA, 60% in revision THA. Proposed (reasonable) indications: primary THA at high risk for dislocation, revision THA for instability and/or in case of abductors deficiency, Undisputed indication: 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

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

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

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

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. Cementless acetabular fixation in total hip replacement (THA) is reliable and has been the fixation method of choice in the United States for decades. While revision for failure of osseointegration or early loosening is relatively rare, recurrent dislocation remains a leading cause of early revision. Novel acetabular implants and those offered by smaller companies often lack constrained or dual mobility liners, which may result in revision of well-fixed, well-positioned cups in cases of recurrent dislocation. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of THA with three different acetabular cups with differing fixation surfaces. One hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated cup (Trident, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) offered dual mobility or constrained liner options. The other cups were a novel highly porous cup (Restoris PST, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), and a Calcium Phosphate (CaP)-coated cup (Trinity, Corin, Cirincester, UK), neither of which offered dual mobility or constrained options at the time of investigation. Endpoints of interest were: clinical and radiographic outcomes including evidence of osseointegration, overall reoperations, reoperations for acetabular fixation failure, and reoperations to address dislocation in which a well-positioned shell was revised due to the lack of dual mobility or constrained options. Methods. A retrospective review of 370 acetabular cups implanted in 328 patients for THA by a single surgeon between February 2013 and June 2016 was performed. There were 100 Trident cups (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), 105 Restoris PST Acetabular Cups (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), and 165 Trinity Acetabular Cups (Corin, Cirincester, UK). Patient records were reviewed for post-operative complications, clinical outcomes scores and radiographic signs of acetabular osseointegration at minimum 1-year follow-up. Results. Despite differences in fixation surface, there was no difference in Harris Hip Scores at minimum 1-year follow-up and all three cohorts had 100% 1-year survivorship free of revision for failure of acetabular fixation. No cup showed signs of acetabular migration or loosening. Overall reoperation rates were low, ranging from 2.4%-3.8% (p=0.81). Femoral fractures and fixation problems were the most common cause of reoperation, occurring in nearly 2% of cases (n=7), but did not differ between groups. Reoperation for infection occurred in less than 1% of cases (n=3) and did not differ between groups. Revision for recurrent dislocation occurred in 1% of cases (n=4). All occurred with cups lacking dual mobility or constrained options. In all 4 cases the acetabular component was within the Lewinnek “safe zone” and deemed well positioned. In one revision, a lipped liner and longer head were used given concerns about the risk of acetabular component revision due to poor bone stock. In the remaining revisions, the well-positioned cup was revised to allow for the use of constrained or dual mobility implants. Conclusion. All acetabular revisions in our cohort were related to instability or infection, while none were related to acetabular fixation. Subsequent to this experience and analysis, we are wary to select any “new and improved” acetabular cup that does not have an option for a constrained or dual mobility liner, even when enabling technology makes us confident of safe-zone placement. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Purpose. Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) is increasingly being offered to patients as an alternative to arthrodesis for the operative management of debilitating end-stage ankle arthritis. The Mobility Total Ankle System is a third-generation design consisting of a three component, cementless, unconstrained, mobile-bearing prosthesis. This study reports the early results of a multi-centre prospective study of the Mobility prosthesis. This is the first such report by independent researchers. Method. The senior authors implanted 86 consecutive Mobility prostheses. The underlying diagnosis was primary OA in 24 ankles, secondary OA in 47 ankles and inflammatory arthritis in 15 ankles. There were 41 males (Mean age 67 / Range 51–87) and 44 females (Mean age 60 / Range 29–72). The mean BMI was 28 (Range 22–36) for males, and 28 (Range 20–39) for females. Previous ankle operations were performed in 24 patients, 22 of which were for fracture fixation. Ankles were classified according to the COFAS end-stage ankle arthritis classification system. Coronal plane deformity was quantified pre-operatively. Clinical outcome was assessed using the AOFAS hindfoot score. Radiological assessment was performed from weight-bearing radiographs, documenting post-operative alignment, osseous integration, edge-loading and heterotopic bone formation. The mean follow-up time was 40 months (Range 30–60). Survival analysis was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Failure was defined as exchange of any component of the TAR, arthrodesis or amputation. Results. Type 1 ankle arthritis was demonstrated in 54 ankles (63%). No patient had pre-operative coronal plane angulation > 20. In 30 ankles (35%), the pre-operative coronal alignment was neutral, and in 32 ankles (37%), the deformity was < 10. The mean AOFAS hindfoot score improved from 37.4 (Range 12–59) pre-operatively to 77.9 (Range 51–100) post-operatively. 78 (90%) of prosthetic components were implanted within 5 of the optimal position. Bone-implant interface abnormalities were identified in 16 ankles (18%). In total, 5 TARs required revision, 4 for aseptic loosening and one for component malpositioning. There was one conversion to arthrodesis, and one BKA for CRPS. 30 simultaneous procedures were performed in 28 patients. The most common was gastrocnemius recession. There were 8 re-operations, most commonly for impingement due to peri-articular ossifications. Delayed wound healing occurred in 3 patients, and there was one case of deep infection. There were 5 patients that sustained fractures of the medial malleolus: 2 were intra-operative, and underwent internal fixation. There are 6 patients being investigated for ongoing pain. The 2-year survival was 96.4% (95% CI 89.4–99.1) and 3-year survival was 91.7% (95% CI 83.3–96.3). Conclusion. Although early results of the Mobility TAR are encouraging for independent researchers, they do not match those reported by designer surgeons. Most patients achieve good pain relief and improved function post-operatively

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

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

Dislocation is a particular problem after total hip replacement in femoral neck fractures and elderly, especially female, patients. The increased rate of dislocation in this population is probably due to significant ligamentous laxity in these patients and poor coordination and proprioception. Another population of patients with increased propensity for dislocation is the revision hip replacement patient. Current dislocation rates in these patients can approach 10% with conventional implant systems. The Dual Mobility total hip system is composed of a cobalt chrome acetabular shell that has a grit blasted, beaded and/or hydroxyapatite coating to improve bone ingrowth. The polyethylene liner is highly crosslinked polyethylene and fits congruently into the cobalt chrome shell and acts like a large femoral head (usually > 40 mm). The femoral head attached to the trunnion is usually 28 mm. The femoral head snaps into the polyethylene liner to acts as a second protection against dislocation. Indications for the Dual Mobility socket are in the high risk for dislocation patient and particularly in elderly, female patients. It is also indicated in patients with neuromuscular disease who are at more risk to dislocate. To date 237 dual mobility cups have been performed with an average age of 79 and 207 of the procedures in women. The follow up extends to 5.6 years with an average of 3.5. There has been 1 dislocation which occurred after a traumatic event. There have been no mechanical failures, no infections and no other revisions in this series. Interprosthetic dislocation has been reported in long term follow up and there was, in this series, when reduction was performed on the only liner dislocation. Pain relief has been no different than conventional hip replacement and range of motion is unchanged as well

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