Aims. There is little information in the literature about the use of dual-mobility (DM) bearings in preventing re-dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to compare the use of DM bearings, standard bearings, and constrained liners in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation. Methods. We reviewed 86 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation between August 2012 and July 2019. A total of 38 revisions (44.2%) involved a DM bearing, while 39 (45.3%) and nine (10.5%) involved a standard bearing and a constrained liner, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation, and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for the positioning of the acetabular component, the restoration of the centre of rotation, leg length, and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by Cox regression analysis. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHSs) were recorded. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (43 to 88); 54 were female (62.8%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years (2.0 to 8.75). Results. DM bearings were used significantly more frequently in elderly patients (p = 0.003) and in hips with abductor deficiency (p < 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 13.2% for DM bearings compared with 17.9% for standard bearings, and 22.2% for constrained liners (p = 0.432). Re-revision-free survival for DM bearings was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.91) compared with 74% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) for standard articulations, and 67% (95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) for constrained liners (p = 0.361). Younger age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99); p = 0.031), lower comorbidity (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.95); p = 0.037), smaller heads (HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.99); p = 0.046), and retention of the acetabular component (HR 8.26 (95% CI 1.37 to 49.96); p = 0.022) were significantly associated with re-dislocation. All DM bearings which re-dislocated were in patients with abductor muscle deficiency (HR 48.34 (95% CI 0.03 to 7,737.98); p = 0.303). The radiological analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between restoration of the geometry of the hip and re-dislocation. The mean mHHSs significantly improved from 43 points (0 to 88) to 67 points (20 to 91; p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, with no differences between the types of bearing. Conclusion. We found that the use of DM bearings reduced the rates of re-dislocation and re-revision in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, but did not guarantee stability. Abductor deficiency is an important predictor of persistent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):89–97

An inquiry was made of ninety-seven patients with recurrent dislocation of the patella and forty patients with recurrent dislocation of the shoulder to see how often they had a relative similarly affected, and also how often such dislocation is associated with, and perhaps caused by, familial joint laxity. Ten of those with recurrent dislocation of the patella and two of those with recurrent dislocation of the shoulder were found to have a near relative with a similar dislocation. Familial joint laxity was found in two of the ten families with more than one member affected by recurrent patellar dislocation, and in both those with more than one member with recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Familial joint laxity was also found in two out of twenty patients with recurrent dislocation of the patella who had no family history of similar dislocation; but in none out of twenty patients with recurrent dislocation of the shoulder and who had no family history of similar dislocation. Familial joint laxity may be the only cause of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder occurring in more than one member of the family. But there are other, as yet undefined, causes of familial recurrent dislocation of the patella

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings are effective to mitigate dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, data on its use for treating dislocation is scarce. Aim of this study was to compare DM bearings, standard bearings and constrained liner (CL) in revision THA for recurrent dislocation and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation. We reviewed 100 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation from 2012 and 2019. 45 hips (45%) received a DM construct, while 44 hips (44%) and 11 hips (11%) had a standard bearing and CL, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for cup positioning, restoration of centre of rotation, leg length and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by cox regression analysis. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Mean follow-up was 53 months (1 to 103). DM constructs were used more frequently in elderly patients (p=0.011) and hips with abductor deficiency (p< 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 11.1% for DM bearings compared with 15.9% for standard bearings and 18.2% for CL (p=0.732). Revision-free survival for DM constructs was 83% (95% CI 0.77 – 0.90) compared to 75% (95% CI 0.68 – 0.82) for standard articulations and 71% (95% CI 0.56 – 0.85) for CL (p=0.455). Younger age (HR 0.91; p=0.020), lower comorbidity (HR 0.42; p=0.031), smaller heads (HR 0.80; p=0.041) and cup retention (HR 8.23; p=0.022) were associated with re-dislocation. Radiological analysis did not reveal a relationship between restoration of hip geometry and re-dislocation. mHHS significantly improved from 43.8 points to 65.7 points (p<0.001) with no differences among bearing types. Our findings suggest that DM bearings do not sufficiently prevent dislocation in revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Reconstruction of the abductor complex may play a key role to reduce the burden in these high-risk patients

The aims of this study were to determine the functional impact and financial burden of isolated and recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our secondary goal was to determine whether there was a difference between patients who were treated non-operatively and those who were treated operatively. . We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients who had suffered dislocation of a primary THA. Their mean age was 67 years (41 to 92) and the mean follow-up was 3.8 years (2.1 to 8.2). . Because patients with recurrent dislocation were three times more likely to undergo operative treatment (p < 0.0001), they ultimately had a significantly higher mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) (p = 0.0001), lower mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (p = 0.001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than patients with a single dislocation. Likewise, those who underwent operative treatment had a higher mean HHS (p < 0.0001), lower mean WOMAC score (p < 0.0001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than those who were treated non-operatively. Recurrent dislocation and operative treatment increased costs by 300% (£11 456; p < 0.0001) and 40% (£5217; p < 0.0001), respectively. The operative treatment of recurrent dislocation results in significantly better function than non-operative management. Moreover, the increase in costs for operative treatment is modest compared with that of non-operative measures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:1046–9

Far too many cases of instability and recurrent dislocation occur after primary total hip replacement. The motivation for this paper came from yet another three cases of recurrent dislocation on our theatre list in a single month (March 2006). All three were recurrent dislocations after primary hip replacements. Since these were not three isolated cases we realised that there is an urgent need to improve the situation. In all three cases surgical or implant factors were responsible. We take a fresh look at the causes; which are implant, surgeon and patient related. Of these only patient related issues cannot always be corrected. The design of a stable implant is discussed and revolves around head size, head neck ratio and cup depth. The surgeons’ contribution can be equally important and controllable – it embodies correct peri-articular soft tissue tension, orientation of components and patient selection. Finally, patient factors are neuromuscular, anatomical and patient compliance. In this respect some unresolved factors should be identified pre-operatively. Especially for the occasional hip surgeon this is an extremely important issue. The recurrent dislocation results in extremely poor quality of life, often leading to revision surgery. These aged patients usually suffer multiple inherent risks and massive financial losses. Above all we believe that the great majority of these dislocations can be prevented by simply keeping to the clear and well proven principles of stability in total hip replacement

Background: Dislocation after total hip replacement (THR) is a significant concern with the increased number of THR carried out all over the world, although there has been a substantial lack of information regarding revision THR for instability in literature. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of operative treatment for recurrent dislocation after THR. Material and methods: One hundred and eleven cases were treated operatively for recurrent dislocation after THR by a senior author (BMW). Group A; 104 cases were operated with change of either or both of components, a socket and a stem. Twenty-two mm head was used in 90 cases (A-1), 32 mm head in twelve (A-2), and 36 mm head in two (A-3). Group B; only modular head was changed in one case. Group C; augmentation device was applied on a cup in six cases. The average follow-up period was 6.2 years (range, 1 to 21 years). Results: Group A-1; twelve cases (13%) required further operations for instability (N=90). Group A-2; one case (8.3%) was converted to Girdle-Stone for recurrent dislocation (N=12). Group A-3; one of them was revised for periprosthetic fracture (N=2). Group B; the case survived at the follow-up of 3.3 years (N=1). Group C; two cases (33%) were revised for dislocation (N=6). Conclusion: We reported the largest series of revision THR for recurrent dislocation by a single surgeon with a considerable length of follow-up periods. Revision THR with change of components was an effective treatment for recurrent dislocation after THR

1. Recurrent dislocation of the elbow is caused primarily by collateral ligament laxity with secondary damage to the capitulum and head of radius. 2. The pathological changes resemble those of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. 3. Subluxation or instability of the radial head is often associated with capsular ossification and deserves wider recognition because it may be confused with osteochondritis dissecans. 4. A simple method of soft-tissue repair has successfully prevented redislocation of eight elbows

1. The operative findings in seventeen cases of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder are presented and discussed. Detachment of the glenoid labrum (thirteen cases) and the formation of a posterior humeral groove (eleven cases) were the most consistent findings. 2. In one case recurrent dislocation of the shoulder was due to avulsion of the subscapularis muscle. 3. The surgical treatment of these cases is described, usually consisting of a modification of Bankart's operation. 4. The results of follow-up are given as an intermediate report. No post-operative dislocation has so far been reported

Background. Dislocation is one of the commonest complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with incidence of between 0.3 and 10% in primary, and from 15 % to 30% of revision cases. Despite this, little is known of the outcome of treatment strategies for dislocation. In this study, we evaluated clinical results in patient undergoing revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Materials and Methods. Twenty-four hips underwent revision THA for recurrent instability between 1998 and 2011 at our institution. Nine patients were male, and 15 were female. At the time of revision, the average age was 69.9 years (range, 45–83 years). Average follow-up was 29.8 months (range, 6–72 months). We recorded the number of times of dislocation, the direction of dislocation, the factor of dislocation and the operative strategy employed for each case. Demographic data and surgical treatment used were analyzed to determine risk factors for failure. We performed Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Student's t-test and Fisher exact test to evaluate the factors influencing failure. Significance was defined as a p value of <0.05 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0 J for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)). Results. Before revision surgery, dislocation was occurred more than three times in all cases. The anterior dislocation was only four cases. In the factor of dislocation, 5 were malposition of implant, 11 were soft tissue imbalance, 3 were highly posterior tilting of pelvic and 5 were multi-factorial. Revision treatment includedã��liner and ball exchange in 19 hips, cup exchange in 5 hips. There was eight substitution to constrain liner for sever soft tissue imbalance. Nine (37.5%) had further dislocation. Cup revision for implant malposition was a successful method in recurrent instability (P=0.04). Constrain liner exchange (P=0.03) was associated with higher failure rate. Conclusion. Recurrent dislocation has complex problems with multifaceted etiology that requires extensive preoperative planning of each dislocation factors and availability of multiple surgical options

This study reports the outcome of using the Posterior Lip Augmentation Device (PLAD) for recurrent dislocation of total hip replacement. Twenty-seven patients (16 in Inverness, 11 in Leeds) were treated with the device. The indication for its use was recurrent dislocation of the hip in a patient who had a well-orientated and well-fixed cemented acetabular component. The patients had had between 2 and 14 dislocations before using the PLAD. 24 of the 27 patients had satisfactory control of the dislocations after surgery. The operation was found to be straightforward in most cases with few complications, although one case in the Inverness series has a partial sciatic nerve palsy which is recovering. Of the three failures, two had recurrent dislocation after the use of the PLAD. In one of these, in whom the dislocation followed acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting, the cup also pulled out due to the semi-captive state after use of the PLAD. Both of these cases were treated by a Girdlestone excision arthroplasty. There was one final failure in whom there has been no further dislocation but following an abduction injury some four months after surgery, progressive cup loosening developed and he awaits revision of the cup. One patient complains of an occasional click in the hip joint and a broken screw is visible on x-ray but there has been no loss of position of the device and no further evidence of dislocation. Overall, we have found that this device gives satisfactory control of recurrent dislocations of the hip but the failures have stressed the need to ensure that the cup fixation is sound before inserting the device

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

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

A lesion similar to that described by Bankart in recurrent dislocation of the shoulder was seen in seven patients with recurrent dislocation of the peroneal tendons. Detachment of the periosteum had resulted in the formation of a false pouch on the surface of the lower end of the fibula; into this pouch the peroneal tendons could easily dislocate. Reattachment of the periosteum to drill holes in the fibula prevented dislocation, and this anatomical method of repair is described. This lesion is one of the causes of recurrent dislocation of the peroneal tendons

Surgical treatment of recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging with often disappointing results. The influence of the posterior hip capsule is important, and restoration of its function is a major goal of treatment. We describe our experience using an Achilles tendon allograft as a checkrein to limit hip internal rotation and to prevent posterior instability. Twenty unstable THAs were treated using this technique, eliminating instability in fifteen. At an average follow-up of 3.6 years, Achilles tendon allograft augmentation has proven a useful adjunct for the treatment of recurrent posterior dislocation after THA in selected patients. The purpose of this study is to review our results with a novel treatment for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using an Achilles tendon allograft as a checkrein to prevent instability. Achilles tendon allograft augmentation has proved to be a useful adjunct for the treatment of recurrent posterior dislocation after THA in selected patients. Surgical treatment of recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging with often disappointing results. Among possible causes of dislocation, the influence of the static soft tissue restraint provided by the hip capsule is important, and restoration of its integrity and function is a major goal of treatment. We describe a new technique in which an Achilles tendon allograft is employed as a checkrein to limit hip internal rotation and to prevent posterior instability. Twenty unstable THAs with recurrent instability were treated using this technique, eliminating instability in fifteen at an average follow-up of 3.6 (0.5 to 6.6) years. Prospective data was collected and reviewed on the first twenty patients with recurrent THA instability stabilized with an Achilles tendon allograft. Head and liner exchanges accompanied the allograft. Use of a constrained cup was considered a failure. Instability was successfully controlled in 75% of patients with use of the Achilles allograft. The technique is an important addition to the treatment arsenal of this difficult problem

A review of the pathology, mechanism, and operative treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder, based on an analysis of 180 cases, with 159 operations, is presented. From this analysis the following conclusions have been made and appear to be substantiated:. 1. The pathology comprises two important elements: (a) anterior detachment of the glenoid labrum from the bone margin of the glenoid, associated with some degree of stripping of the anterior part of the capsule from the front of the neck of the scapula, found in 87 per cent. of cases examined adequately at operation; (b) defect or flattening of the posterolateral aspect of the articular surface of the head of the humerus which engages with the glenoid cavity when the arm is in external rotation and abduction; this defect is demonstrated most readily in antero-posterior radiographs taken with the humerus in 60 to 70 degrees of internal rotation and was shown to be present in 82 per cent. of cases which had been subjected to adequate radiographic examination. 2. The frequency of the humeral head defect has been under-estimated in the past, because of the difficulty of demonstrating it, particularly when the defect is small. 3. Either type of lesion alone may predispose to recurrence of the dislocation. 4. Both types of lesion are often present in the same shoulder. When this is the case the tendency to redislocation is great. 5. The initial dislocation, which results in the development of one or both these persistent structural abnormalities, may be due to very different types of injury, the commonest of which is a fall on the outstretched hand. The factor common to all these injuries is a resultant force acting on the humeral head in the direction of the anterior glenoid margin. 6. In the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder joint the Nicola operation is unreliable, and it may be associated with a recurrence rate as high as 36 per cent. It is believed that continued instability after this operation is usually due to the presence of a defect of the humeral head. 7. Operative treatment should aim at repairing, or nullifying, the effects of both types of lesion. For anterior detachment of the labrum this involves either suturing the labrum back to the glenoid margin, or constructing some form of anterior buttress, fibrous or bony: for humeral head defects it necessitates some procedure designed to limit external rotation, thus preventing the defect from coming into engagement with the glenoid cavity. Such limitation of external rotation does not constitute a significant disability

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

1. Attention is drawn to the importance of taking tangential radiographs of the patella in all cases of injury to the knee, especially when there is difficulty in distinguishing between recurrent dislocation of the patella and tear of a meniscus. 2. New bone formation along the medial side of the patella confirms a diagnosis of recurrent dislocation. 3. The importance of Coleman's original observations is stressed

The family we record draws attention to an association between recurrent dislocation of the patella and joint laxity, which is not confined to the knee. This may pass unrecognised if specific inquiry is not made. In this and other families reported, the joint laxity is inherited, as though due to a dominant gene, but some only of those affected suffer recurrent dislocation of the patella. It is probable that there are other genetically determined causes of recurrent patellar dislocation. In three other families we have seen more than one subject of patellar dislocation, but none had lax ligaments, and two other families have been recorded with no mention of associated joint laxity

We treated 34 patients with recurrent dislocation of the hip with a constrained acetabular component. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis was performed to assess migration of the prosthesis. The mean clinical follow-up was 3.0 years (2.2 to 4.8) and the radiological follow-up was 2.7 years (2.0 to 4.8). At the latest review six patients had died and none was lost to follow-up. There were four acetabular revisions, three for aseptic loosening and one for deep infection. Another acetabular component was radiologically loose with progressive radiolucent lines in all Gruen zones and was awaiting revision. The overall rate of aseptic loosening was 11.8% (4 of 34). Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis in the non-revised components confirmed migration of up to 1.06 mm of translation and 2.32° of rotation at 24 months. There was one case of dislocation and dissociation of the component in the same patient. Of the 34 patients, 33 (97.1%) had no further episodes of dislocation. The constrained acetabular component reported in our study was effective in all but one patient with instability of the hip, but the rate of aseptic loosening was higher than has been reported previously and requires further investigation

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