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). Methods. A retrospective review of patients treated with either a DMC or PLAD for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA was performed. They were identified using electronic patient records (EPR). EPR data and radiographs were evaluated to determine operating time, length of stay, and the incidence of complications and recurrent dislocation postoperatively. Results. A total of 28 patients underwent revision using a DMC for dislocation following Charnley THA between 2013 and 2017. The rate of recurrent dislocation and overall complications were compared with those of a previous series of 54 patients who underwent revision for dislocation using a PLAD, between 2007 and 2013. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean distribution of sex or age between the groups. The mean operating time was 71 mins (45 to 113) for DMCs and 43 mins (21 to 84) for PLADs (p = 0.001). There were no
The aim of this study was to determine if uncemented acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner geometry, and lip size, influenced the risk of revision for instability or loosening. A total of 202,511 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with uncemented acetabular components were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset between 2003 and 2017. The effect of liner geometry on the risk of revision for instability or loosening was investigated using competing risk regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size, and polyethylene crosslinking. Stratified analyses by surgical approach were performed, including pairwise comparisons of liner geometries.Aims
Methods
When the present study was initiated, we changed the treatment for late-detected developmental dislocation of the hip (DDH) from several weeks of skin traction to markedly shorter traction time. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate this change, with special emphasis on the rate of stable closed reduction according to patient age, the development of the acetabulum, and the outcome at skeletal maturity. From 1996 to 2005, 49 children (52 hips) were treated for late-detected DDH. Their mean age was 13.3 months (3 to 33) at reduction. Prereduction skin traction was used for a mean of 11 days (0 to 27). Gentle closed reduction under general anaesthesia was attempted in all the hips. Concurrent pelvic osteotomy was not performed. The hips were evaluated at one, three and five years after reduction, at age eight to ten years, and at skeletal maturity. Mean age at the last follow-up was 15.7 years (13 to 21).Aims
Methods
The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA.Aims
Methods
Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.
We present our experience with a double-mobility
acetabular component in 155 consecutive revision total hip replacements
in 149 patients undertaken between 2005 and 2009, with particular
emphasis on the incidence of further dislocation. The mean age of
the patients was 77 years (42 to 89) with 59 males and 90 females.
In all, five patients died and seven were lost to follow-up. Indications
for revision were aseptic loosening in 113 hips, recurrent instability
in 29, peri-prosthetic fracture in 11 and sepsis in two. The mean
follow-up was 42 months (18 to 68). Three hips (2%) in three patients
dislocated within six weeks of surgery; one of these dislocated
again after one year. All three were managed successfully with closed
reduction. Two of the three dislocations occurred in patients who
had undergone revision for recurrent dislocation. All three were
found at revision to have abductor deficiency. There were no dislocations
in those revised for either aseptic loosening or sepsis. These results demonstrate a good mid-term outcome for this component.
In the 29 patients revised for instability, only two had a further
dislocation, both of which were managed by closed reduction.
Increased femoral head size may reduce dislocation rates following total hip replacement. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales has highlighted a statistically significant increase in the use of femoral heads ≥ 36 mm in diameter from 5% in 2005 to 26% in 2009, together with an increase in the use of the posterior approach. The aim of this study was to determine whether rates of dislocation have fallen over the same period. National data for England for 247 546 procedures were analysed in order to determine trends in the rate of dislocation at three, six, 12 and 18 months after operation during this time. The 18-month revision rates were also examined. Between 2005 and 2009 there were significant decreases in cumulative dislocations at three months (1.12% to 0.86%), six months (1.25% to 0.96%) and 12 months (1.42% to 1.11%) (all p <
0.001), and at 18 months (1.56% to 1.31%) for the period 2005 to 2008 (p <
0.001). The 18-month revision rates did not significantly change during the study period (1.26% to 1.39%, odds ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.24), p = 0.118). There was no evidence of changes in the coding of dislocations during this time. These data have revealed a significant reduction in dislocations associated with the use of large femoral head sizes, with no change in the 18-month revision rate.
