Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and Hip Hemiarthroplasties (HA) are successful, cost-effective procedures that improve quality of life. Dislocation is a well recognised complication with a significant health and economic burden. We aim to establish the current management practices across the United Kingdom (UK) for Prosthetic Hip Dislocations (PHD). Our definition of a PHD includes; THA, HA and revision THA.

This national study builds on our regional pilot study and records one of the largest datasets of Prosthetic Hip Dislocation management within the UK.

A trainee-led collaborative; the North West Orthopaedic Research Collaborative (NWORC). Conducted a retrospective audit, registered as Quality Improvement (QI) projects, collected data from 38 hospital trusts across the UK.

Data was collected on patient-related factors, inpatient management, and outpatient follow up of each PHD episode between January and July 2019. Primary outcome measured definitive management, in the form of revision surgery or the consideration for this through a referral pathway.

A total of 673 (THA 504, Revision THA 141, HA 28) patients were included with a total of 740 dislocation episodes. Mean age was 75.6 years with female to male ratio 2:1. The majority of PHDs were a result of a low energy mechanism (98.7%) and presented over 6 months post index procedure (80.5%). Over half (53.8%) attended with a first or second time dislocation. Only 29.9% patients received onward revision referral; whereas 70.1% followed diverse management patterns, including local non-arthroplasty and primary arthroplasty surgeon follow-ups. Revision THAs had higher rates of referral for revision (p<0.001) compared to primary THA and HA dislocations.

A high number of PHDs present across the UK, with under a third receiving definitive management plans. This variation increases the economical burden to the National Health Service, highlighting the need for national guidance to manage these complex patients.

The increased torque required to dislocate dual mobility (DM) components may increase peri-prosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) risk. Current literature often relies on revision as an endpoint and may underestimate PPF. This study aims to review PPF rate, risks and treatment following primary DM implantation.

Prospective cohort study of 549 patients following primary DM total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2013 and 2021. Collected data included demographics, indication for surgery, cortical index and PPF.

549 patients were identified with primary DM THA. Mean age was 73 years (26–96). 446 (81.2%) patients had their index surgery following hip fracture. 18 patients (3.27%) sustained a PPF. Cumulative PPF rate was 1.5% at 1-year, 2.2% at 5-years and 3.27% overall. PPF was higher in patients undergoing surgery following hip fracture (4%) vs. other indications (1%). OR 4.04 (95% CI:0.53, 30.72), p=0.219. Mean cortical index was lower in patients with PPF 0.4 (95% CI:0.36, 0.45) compared to those without 0.46 (95% CI:0.45, 0.46) p=0.029. Treatment for PPF included 10 (55.6%) open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), 7 (38.9%) revision THA and 1 conservatively managed.

PPF rate following DM use is higher in our cohort than published rates. Our rates are comparable to some papers when subgroup analysis of older patients and cemented taper slip stems are considered. PPF risk with DM may be increased in patients undergoing surgery after hip fracture or with a lower cortical index preoperatively. Over half of PPF were managed with ORIF and may mask PPF risk studies that report using revision as an endpoint.

Aims

Dislocation remains a significant complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), being the third leading indication for revision. We present a series of acetabular revision using a dual mobility cup (DMC) and compare this with our previous series using the posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD).