Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
General Orthopaedics

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 11 - 11
23 Jan 2024
Raj S Magan A Jones SA
Full Access

Dual mobility (DM) is an established bearing option in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). The traditional mono-block DM designs have limited ability for additional fixation, whereas the modular DM designs allow additional screw fixation but limit internal diameter and have the potential to generate metal debris. We report the early results of a CoCrMo alloy mono-block implant manufactured by additive technology with a highly porous ingrowth surface to enhance primary fixation and osseointegration.

Prospective follow-up of the DuplexTM implant first inserted in March 2016 enrolled into Beyond Compliance (BC). Primary outcome measure was all-cause revision and secondary outcomes dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Patients were risk stratified and all considered to be high risk for instability. Complications were identified via hospital records, clinical coding linkage using national database and via BC website.

159 implants in 154 patients with a mean age 74.0 years and a maximum F/U of 7 years. Survivorship for all-cause revision 99.4% (95% CI 96.2–99.8). One femoral only revision. Mean gain in OHS 27.4. Dislocation rate 0.6% with a single event. Patients with a cemented Polished taper stem (PTS) had a Type B PPF rate of 2.1% requiring revision/fixation. Compared to conventional THA this cohort was significantly older (74.0 vs 68.3 years), more co-morbidity (ASA 3 46.5% vs 14.4%) and more non-OA indications (32.4% vs 8.5%). Every patient had at least one risk factor for falling and >50% of cohort had 4 or more risk factors using NICE tool.

We believe our results demonstrate that risk stratification successfully aids implant selection to prevent dislocation in high-risk patients. This novel design has provided excellent early results in a challenging cohort where individuals are very different to the “average” THA patient. NJR data on DM has reported an increase in revision for PPF. A “perfect storm” maybe created using DM in high-risk falls risk population. This re-enforces the need to consider all patient and implant factors when deciding bearing selection.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 9 - 9
1 Oct 2017
Abdul W Goodson M Jones SA
Full Access

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