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

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

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

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

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

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). We have considered constrained liners in some of these cases. However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation situation specifically it is important to have all options available including tripolar 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 10–15% have been reported 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, 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 tripolar constrained liners 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 tripolar 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 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

Management of recurrent instability of the hip requires careful assessment to determine any identifiable causative factors. While plain radiographs can give a general impression, CT is the best methodology for objective measurement. Variables that can be measured include: prosthetic femoral anteversion, comparison to contralateral native femoral anteversion, total offset from the medial wall of the pelvis to the lateral side of the greater trochanter, comparison to total offset on the contralateral side, acetabular inclination, & acetabular anteversion.

Wera et al describe potential causes of instability. These are typed into I. Acetabular Component Malposition; II. Femoral Component Malposition; III. Abductor Deficiency; IV. Impingement; V. Late Wear; and VI. Unknown.

Acetabular component malposition is the most common cause of instability and so measurement of cup orientation is essential. It is well known that excessive or inadequate anteversion can lead to anterior and posterior dislocation respectively but horizontal components are also associated with posterior dislocation due to deficient posterior/inferior acetabular surface.

Similarly, excessive or inadequate femoral anteversion can be easily identified on CT as can insufficient total offset of the reconstructed joint compared to the contralateral side. This can be caused by medialization of the acetabular component.

Abductor deficiency can be a soft-tissue cause of instability, but it certainly isn't the only one. Knowledge of the prior surgical exposure can be instructive. Anterior exposures can be prone to deficient anterior capsule just as posterior exposures can be prone to deficient posterior capsule and short rotators, while anterolateral and lateral exposures can be associated with gluteus minimus and gluteus medius compromise.

Impingement, whether involving implants, bone, or soft tissue are primarily secondary to the above factors, if osteophytes were properly trimmed at the index procedure.

Correction of the incorrect variables is the primary goal of revision for instability and greatly preferable to using salvage options such as dual-mobility or constrained articulations which invoke additional concerns. Ultimately though, such salvage options are necessary if the cause of the instability cannot be determined or can be determined but not corrected. Bracing, while highly inconvenient and sometimes impractical for certain patients, still has a role in specific circumstances. Formal analysis of the unstable prosthetic reconstruction is the key to successful treatment.

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.

Hypothesis. Recurrent shoulder dislocation is associated with bony defect of the glenoid rim, commonly seen along with bankart tear - a soft tissue injury of glenoid labrum. This cadaveric study compares the bone block effect of coracoid transfer using using two common techniques, Classical Latarjet technique and the Congruent-Arc Latarjet. We hypothesized that the force needed to dislocate the shoulder would be greater in Congruent Arc technique than the Classical Latarjet, because of increased contact surface area as a result of greater linear dimensions. Material and methods. We dissected 14 cadaveric shoulders. A bony Bankart lesion was created in form of an inverted pear glenoid. The humeral head was attached to a pulley system that was sequentially loaded until the shoulder dislocated anteriorly. The force needed to dislocate was noted. This was repeated after coracoid transfer with two common techniques, Classical Latarjet technique and the Congruent-Arc Latarjet. Results. The mean force required to dislocate shoulder post-Classical Latarjet technique was 325.71N, compared to 123.57 N in uncorrected shoulder. Similarly, the mean force required to dislocate shoulder post Congruent-Arc Latarjet technique was 327.14 N compared to 123.57 N in uncorrected shoulder. The two-tailed P value in either case was less than 0.0001, thus statistically significant. Unpaired t-test was done to compare the force required to dislocate the shoulder post procedure. Mean force required to dislocate shoulder post-Classical Latarjet, was 325.7N compared to 327N in post-Congruent Arc. The two-tailed P value equals 0.9020 and the 95% confidence interval was from −25.05 to 22.19, thus the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The results confirm that both (Classical and Congruent-Arc Latarjet) techniques are good for addressing the shoulder instability, however bone block effect provided by one is not superior to other

Fully constrained liners are used to treat recurrent dislocations or patients at high risk after total hip replacements. However, they can cause significant morbidities including recurrent dislocations, infections, aseptic loosening and fractures. We examine long term results of 111 patients with tripolar constrained components to assess their redislocation and failure rate. The purpose of this study was to assess survivorship, complications and functional outcomes at a minimum 10 years after the constrained tripolar liners used in our institute. We retrospectively identified 111 patients who had 113 revision tripolar constrained liners between 1998 and 2008. Eighty-nine were revised due to recurrent dislocations, 11 for pseudotumor with dysfunctional abductors, and 13 for periprosthetic infection with loss of soft tissue stabilizers. All patients had revision hip arthroplasty before the constrained liner was used: 13 after the first revision, 17 after the second, 38 after the third, and 45 had more than 3 revisions. We extracted demographics, implant data, rate of dislocations and incidence of other complications. Kaplan Meier curves were used to assess dislocation and failure for any reason. WOMAC was used to assess quality of life. At 10 years, the survival free of dislocation was 95.6% (95%CI 90- 98), and at 20 years to 90.6% (95% CI 81- 95.5). Eight patients (7.1%) had dislocations of their constrained liners: 1 patient had simultaneous periprosthetic infection identified at the time of open reduction, and 1 patient sustained stem fracture 3 months prior to the liner dislocation. At 10 years, the survival to any further surgery was 89.4% (95% CI 82–93.8), and at 20 years, this was 82.5 (95% CI 71.9–89.3). Five patients (4.4%) had deep infection: 4 of these had excision arthroplasty due to failure to control infection, while 1 patient was treated successfully with debridement, exchange of mobile components and intravenous antibiotics. Two patients (1.8%) had dissociated rings that required change of liner, ring and head. Two patients (1.8%) had periprosthetic femoral fractures that were treated by revision stems and exchange of constrained liners. The mean WOMAC functional and pain scores were 66.2 and 75.9 of 100, respectively. Constrained tripolar liners in our institute provided favourable results in the long term for recurrent dislocation hip arthroplasty with dysfunctional hip stabilizers. Infection in these patients can prove to be difficult to treat due to their poor soft tissue conditions from repeated surgeries. Comparing long terms results from other types of constrained liners is essential to evaluate these salvage liners

Glenoid bone grafting in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has emerged as an effective method of restoring bone stock in the presence of complex glenoid bone loss, yet there is limited published evidence on efficacy. The aim of this study was to conduct an analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with glenoid bone grafting in primary RTSA. Patients who underwent a primary RTSA with glenoid bone grafting were retrospectively identified from the databases of two senior shoulder surgeons. Inclusion criteria included minimum of 12 months clinical and/or radiographical follow up. Patients underwent preoperative clinical and radiographic assessment. Graft characteristics (source, type, preparation), range of movement (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Scores [OSS]), and complications were recorded. Radiographic imaging was used to analyse implant stability, graft incorporation, and notching by two independent reviewers. Between 2013 and 2021, a total of 53 primary RTSA procedures (48 patients) with glenoid bone grafting were identified. Humeral head autograft was used in 51 (96%) of cases. Femoral head allograft was utilised in two cases. Depending on the morphology of glenoid bone loss, a combination of structural (corticocancellous) and non-structural (cancellous) grafts were used to restore glenoid bone stock and the joint line. All grafts were incorporated at review. The mean post-operative OSS was significantly higher than the pre-operative OSS (40 vs. 22, p < 0.001). ROM was significantly improved post-operatively. One patient is being investigated for residual activity-related shoulder pain. This patient also experienced scapular notching resulting in the fracturing of the inferior screw. One patient experienced recurrent dislocations but was not revised. Overall, at short term follow up, glenoid bone grafting was effective in addressing glenoid bone loss with excellent functional and clinical outcomes when used for complex bone loss in primary RTSA. The graft incorporation rate was high, with an associated low complication rate

Abstract. Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy (ETO) improves surgical exposure and aids femoral stem and bone cement removal in Revision Total Hip Replacement (RTHR) surgery. The aim of this study was to identify healing rates and complications of ETO in RTHR. Methods. From 2012 to 2019 we identified patients who underwent ETO for RTHR. Data collected demographics, BMI, diabetes, anticoagulants, indication for ETO, surgical approach, length of ETO and complications. Descriptive analysis of patient demographics, multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess ETO complications. Results. There were 63 patients with an average age of 69 years. Indications for ETO were aseptic loosening (30), infection (15), periprosthetic fracture (9), recurrent dislocation (5), broken implant (4). There were 44 cemented and 19 uncemented femoral stem that underwent ETO. Average time from index surgery was 12 years (less than a year to 38 years). All procedures were through posterolateral approach and all ETO were stabilised with cables. Average length of ETO was 12.5cm. BMI varied from 18 to 37. There were 5 diabetics and 16 on anticoagulants. All but one ETO went on to unite. Other complications included infection, dislocations, lateral thigh pain and significant limp. Discussion. Fixation of ETO can be with either wires or cables or plate with cables/screws. Advantages of cables are no irritation over greater trochanter, no disruption of gluteus medius/vastus lateralis continuity, reproducible tension in cables and use of torque limiter minimises loss of tension in cables

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

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 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

Background. Large head metal on metal total hip arthroplasty MOM THA have been consistently shown substantial improvement in wear performance compared with metal on polyethylene articulations. Large diameter femoral heads theoretically can reduce dislocation risk by increasing range of motion before impingement, increasing prosthetic jump distance. However, early failure associated with adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) to metal debris is an emerging problem after MOM THA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term results of MOM THA. Materials and Methods. Twenty-five patients, 28 hips were included in this study. The average age of the patients at the time of surgery was 66.9 years. Three patients were men and 22 were women. MOM THAs were performed using 28 PINNACLE Cup system (DepPuy) (C-STEM: 23, S-ROM: 5) with posterior approach and head size of 36mm. Twenty-five primary THAs due to osteoarthritis in 22 cases and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in one, and two revisions due to recurrent dislocation THA patients, were performed. The average follow up was 56.7 months. Evaluation items are JOA score, cup anteversion /lateral opening angle, and complications. Indication of the system were applied for patients with high risk of dislocation such as recurrent dislocation in primary and/or THAs, posterior pelvic tilt, elderly, RA and mental disorders. Results. The average JOA score improved from 48.3 (range: 26–77) preoperatively to 88.3 (range: 55–100) postoperatively. The average cup anteversion was 21.7 degrees (range: 2–38) and average lateral opening was 45.5 degrees (range: 37–60). Three patients (12%) developed dislocation. Two patients (8%) required reoperations from the deep infection. One female patient (4%) remained hip pain and was suspected pseudotumor / ALTR, which was confirmed by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusion. Large femoral head MOM THA was useful for patients with recurrent dislocation in revision THA. However, three patients developed dislocation in primary THAs (12% of primary cases), which suggested that the more accurate placement of the acetabular cup is important even in the large diameter cup. Although only one case (4%) revealed ALTR, however, continuous careful follow-up would be necessary in the MOM system

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common surgery performed for complications of bipolar arthroplasty. The present study evaluated the functional results and complications associated with this surgery. Patients and Methods. Forty eight hips (48 patients) who had conversion of bipolar arthroplasty to THA between 1998 June and 2013 June, and who were followed-up for more than one year were evaluated. Twenty one hips had conversion surgery to THA using a Fitmore cup with metal-on-metal articulation (28 mm head). Six hips had surgery using the SecurFit cup and three hips, using the Lima LTO cup with ceramic-on-ceramic articulation (28 mm or 32 mm head). Eighteen hips had surgery using a large head metal-on-metal bearing: –MMC (seven hips), ACCIS (six hips) and Magnum (five hips). The average time of follow-up duration was 3.9 years (range, 1.0–11.3). There were 22 men and 26 women between the ages of 28 and 80 years (average, 68.9 years) at the time of conversion surgery. Conversion arthroplasty was performed for acetabular erosion without femoral stem loosening in 19 hips, acetabular cartilage erosion with femoral stem loosening in 13 hips, periprosthetic fracture in 12 hips, and recurrent dislocation in four hips. Results were evaluated using Harris hip score (HHS) and Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. The radiographs were analyzed for evidence of acetabular and femoral osteolysis or loosening. The complications were evaluated. Results. The time interval between hemiarthroplasty and conversion total hip prosthesis was 6.7 years on average (range, 5 months to 12 years). Pain was the leading sign in all patients. Average HHS improved from 42 preoperatively (range, 34–67) to 86 (range, 65 – 97) postoperatively. The average total WOMAC score improved from 47 (range, 32–67) to 22 (range, 9–44) postoperatively. All the patients operated for groin pain reported significant improvement in their symptoms. Radiological evaluation showed good bony ingrowth and stability of all the femoral components. None of the acetabular component showed migration, loosening, wear, or osteolysis at last follow-up. Complications occurred in five hips. One dislocation and one recurrent dislocation were encountered in isolated acetabular revision hips; whereas one single dislocation, one recurrent dislocation, and one trochanteric nonunion occurred in the hips with revision of both components. All dislocations were occurred in hips with a femoral head size of 28 mm. Dislocations were managed by closed reduction, and none of the patients required revision for dislocation. Conclusions. Conversion THA after symptomatic bipolar arthroplasty can offer reliable pain relief and functional improvement. The perioperative complications approximate those of revision THAs

Introduction. Wear-related osteolysis continues to be a concern in the long-term outcome and survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and there continues to be an emphasis on bearing materials that exhibit improved wear profiles. Oxidized zirconium metal (Oxinium®, Smith & Nephew) was developed to reduce the amount of polyethylene wear as compared to cobalt chromium femoral heads, without the risk of brittle fracture seen with older generation ceramics. There are a limited number of retrieval studies evaluating the performance of Oxinium in THA. The aims of this study were 1) to visually assess damage on the surface of a large number of retrieved Oxinium femoral heads, 2) to measure surface roughness of scratches on the surfaces of Oxinium femoral heads, and 3) to use scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess the integrity of the oxidized zirconium surface in damaged areas. BIOLOX delta (CeramTec), a ceramic alternative to Oxinium, was included in this study for comparison. Methods. From 2006 to 2013, 59 retrieved Oxinium femoral heads in THAs were collected after an average time to revision surgery of 1.64 years. The mean patient age was 61.9 years, with 32 males and 27 females. Reasons for revision surgery were recurrent dislocation (24), femoral component loosening or subsidence (13), infection (9), acetabular loosening (4), periprosthethic fracture (4), acetabular malposition (2), heterotopic ossification (2), and 1 case of leg length discrepancy. The diameters of the femoral heads were 28 mm (9), 32 mm (22), 36mm (26) and 40mm (2). Three observers visually graded surface damage on all femoral heads according to the following criteria: 1) no scratches, 2) minimal damage with one to two scratches, 3) significant damage with multiple scratches. We measured the surface roughness of retrieved Oxinium and BIOLOX delta femoral heads with an interferomic profiler, and SEM to evaluate the extent of surface effacement. Results. Oxinium femoral heads explanted for recurrent dislocation showed substantially more severe damage as compared to heads retrieved during revision surgery for other reasons (p<0.001). Eighteen of 24 heads explanted for recurrent dislocation (75%) showed gross visual evidence of substantial surface damage (grade 3), compared to only 5 of the 35 explants for non-dislocation causes (Figure 1). The surface roughness of damaged Oxinium femoral heads was significantly higher (28.6× more rough) than undamaged Oxnium and 17.7× more rough than damaged Biolox delta heads (p<0.001; Figure 2). High magnification imaging showed severe damage and effacement of the oxidized zirconium layer, exposing the metal alloy underneath (Figure 3). This was confirmed by Energy Dispersive Xray Analysis (EDXA). Discussion. This study represents the first large-scale retrieval analysis of oxidized zirconium femoral heads in THA. The results show that high impact between an acetabular shell and an Oxinium femoral head during dislocation increases the surface roughness and causes substantial effacement to the oxidized zirconium layer compared with matched modern ceramic bearings. The surface damage seen to these femoral heads is of clinical concern because it has the potential to increase the wear of polyethylene liners in THA

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