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.

Surgeon-performed periarticular injection and anesthesiologist-performed femoral nerve or adductor canal block with local anesthetic have been used in multimodal pain management for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. Anesthesiologist-performed adductor canal blocks are costly, time consuming, and may be unreliable. We investigated the feasibility of a surgeon-performed saphenous nerve (“adductor-canal”) block from within the knee joint.

A retrospective analysis of 94 thigh-knee MRI studies was performed to determine the relationship between the width of the distal femur at the epicondylar axis and the proximal location of the saphenous nerve after its exit from the adductor canal and separation from the superficial femoral artery. After obtaining these data, TKA resections and trial component implantation were performed, using a medial parapatellar approach, in 11 fresh cadaveric lower extremity specimens. Using a blunt tip 1.5cm needle, we injected 10 ml each of two different colored solutions at two different intra-articular medial injection locations, and after 30 minutes, dissected the femoral and saphenous nerve and femoral artery from the hip to the knee to determine the location of the injections.

Based upon the MRI analysis, the saphenous nerve was located (and had exited the adductor canal) at a mean of 1.5 times the epicondylar width in females, and mean 1.3 times the epicondylar width in males, proximal to the medial epicondyle. After placement of TKA trial components and injection, the proximal injection site solution bathed the saphenous nerve in 8 of 11 specimens. The proximal blunt needle and solution was adjacent, but did not puncture, the femoral artery and vein in only one specimen. This study suggests that a surgeon-performed injection of the saphenous nerve from within the knee is a feasible procedure. This technique may be a useful alternative to ultrasound guided block. A trial comparing surgeon and anesthesiologist-performed nerve block should be considered to determine the clinical efficacy of this procedure. Our anecdotal use of this intra-articular injection over the past year has been favorable. Newer, extended release anesthetic agents should be investigated with this technique.

A well-fixed uncemented acetabular component is most commonly removed for chronic infection, malposition with recurrent dislocation, and osteolysis. However, other cups may have to be removed for a broken locking mechanism, a bad “track record”, and for metal-on-metal articulation problems. Modern uncemented acetabular components are hemispheres which have 3-dimensional ingrowth patterns. Coatings include titanium or cobalt-chromium alloy beads, mesh, and now the so-called “enhanced coatings”, such as tantalum trabecular metal, various highly porous titanium metals, and 3-D printed metal coatings. These usually pose a problem for safe removal without fracture of the pelvis or creation of notable bone deficiency.

Preoperative planning is essential for safe and efficient removal of these well-fixed components. Strongly consider getting the operative report, component “stickers”, and contacting the implant manufacturer for information. There should a preoperative check list of the equipment and trial implants needed, including various screwdrivers, trial liners, and a chisel system. The first step in component removal is excellent 360-degree exposure of the acetabular rim, and this can be accomplished by several approaches. Then, the acetabular polyethylene liner is removed; a liner that is cemented into a porous shell can be “reamed out” using a specific device. Following this, any central or peripheral screws are removed; broken or stripped screw heads add an additional challenge. A trial acetabular liner is placed, and an acetabular curved chisel system is used. There are two manufacturers of this type of system. Both require the known outer acetabular diameter and the inner diameter of the trial liner. With the curved chisel system and patience, well-fixed components can be safely removed, and the size of the next acetabular component to be implanted is usually 4mm larger than the one removed. There are special inserts for removal of monobloc metal shells. Remember that removal of these well-fixed components is more difficult in patients compared to models, and is just the first step of a successful acetabular revision.

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first.

Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the NA Hip Society requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first; the rationale for the decision with comments, and the type of THA prosthesis if “THA first” was chosen. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining.

Complete responses were received from 51 members (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (± 10.4) years of practice experience. The percentages of surgeons recommending “THA first” were 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ²=44.5, p<0.001). Surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. For type of THA prosthesis, dual mobility component was chosen by: 12% in scenario 1; 16% in scenario 2; 8% in scenario 3; 24% in scenario 4; and 10% in scenario 5. Surgeons were more likely to choose dual mobility in scenario 4, but with the numbers available this was not statistically significant (χ²=6.6, p=0.16). The analysis of comments suggested the importance of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy.

With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial even for a group of experienced hip surgeons. Outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making.

Key Points:

Historically, 22.25, 26, 28, or 32 mm metal femoral heads were used in primary total hip arthroplasty, but innovations in materials now permit head sizes 36 mm or larger.

It is unusual to require the use of a total knee implant with more constraint than a posterior-stabilised post in primary knee arthroplasty. The most common indication is a knee with a severe deformity, usually fixed valgus with an incompetent medial collateral ligament, and an inability to correctly balance the knee in both flexion and extension. The pre-operative deformity is usually greater than 15–20 degrees fixed valgus and may be associated with a severe flexion contracture. This is usually seen in an elderly female patient with advanced osteoarthritis. Those pre-operative diagnoses more likely to require a constrained design include advanced rheumatoid arthritis, true neuropathic joint, and the “Charcot-like” joint due to bone loss or crystalline arthritis. Rarely, patients with periarticular knee Paget's disease of bone may require more constraint following correction of a severe deformity through the knee joint. Beware those patients with a staple or screw at the medial epicondyle or those with severe heterotopic ossification at the medial joint line, as this may signify a serious prior injury to the medial collateral ligament. Finally, there is a possibility of inadvertent division of the medial collateral ligament intra-operatively. Although this situation may be treated with suture repair and bracing, my choice is to switch to more constraint and early unbraced motion.

There are over 20 designs of varus-valgus constrained components, with a variety of tibial post designs with specific rotary and angular biomechanics, and many have the option of adding modular stems. Our experience with constrained, non-linked designs has been favorable with both the use of nonmodular and modular stem extensions. Longer-term survival analysis has shown a 96% survival at 10 years with these constrained components. However, the older designs frequently required a lateral retinacular release for proper patella tracking, and there were patella complications (fracture and osteonecrosis) in 16%. With a more modern design, over the past 12 years, the need for a lateral retinacular release and patella complications have been notably decreased. Varus-valgus constrained components have a small but important role in primary total knee arthroplasty for patients with severe deformity or an incompetent medial collateral ligament.

Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with pre-operative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Highly-porous metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and permit use of a short cemented stem. The technique for these cones involve preparing the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphysis. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then implanted, with antibiotic-cement, into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to cementing into deficient metaphyseal bone. There are several manufacturers that provide porous cones for knee revision, but the tantalum-“trabecular metal” cones have the largest and longest clinical follow-up. The advantages of the trabecular metal cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and intermediate-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 trabecular metal cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. Multiple other studies have confirmed these results. Trabecular metal cones are now the author's preferred method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA.

Trunnion corrosion in metal-on-polyethylene THA is poorly understood, with multifactorial etiology, and the patients present with “hip pain”. We analysed the presenting symptoms and signs, intraoperative findings and the early results and complications of operative treatment. One surgeon treated 9 patients (6 male, 3 female), mean age 74 years, with the onset of symptoms at a mean of 7 years (range 3–18) after index surgery. The taper size was 12/14 in seven, 14/16 in one, and 6 degree in one hip. The preoperative mean cobalt level was 7.1 ppb (range, 2.2–12.8) and mean chromium level was 2.2 ppb (range, 0.5–5.2). MARS MRI showed fluid collection and pseudotumor in 5, fluid collection only in two, and synovitis/debris in one hip. In one patient, there was no preoperative MRI.

There were a myriad of clinical presentations: thigh rash alone in one; diffuse leg pain and hip rash in one; acute pseudo-sepsis in one; iliopsoas tendinitis and diffuse rash in one; trochanteric bursitis in one; groin pain only in one; thigh-buttock pain in two; and diffuse hip pain and limp in one patient. Intraoperatively, 6 patients had liner and ceramic (or oxidized zirconium) head exchange only. Three patients had concurrent acetabular revision: one for broken locking mechanism; one because liner was unavailable, and one had acetabular loosening. The postoperative metal levels decreased in all patients: mean cobalt 0.5 ppb (range, 0–1.8) and mean chromium 0.9 ppb (range, 0–2.6). Seven patients had good pain relief and no complications. There were two major complications requiring reoperation: acute infection at 6 weeks and patient required 2-stage reimplantation; and second patient had recurrent dislocation and was revised to a dual mobility component.

Trunnion corrosion in metal-on-polyethylene THA has several clinical presentations, including local skin rash, iliopsoas tendinitis, and other limb dysfunction. There should be a high index of suspicion and serum cobalt/chromium levels are recommended for diagnosis. The patients should be counseled about possible postoperative complications.

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.

Uncemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties (THAs) have had a modular cobalt-chrome alloy head since their introduction in the early 1980's. Retrieval analysis studies and case reports in the early 1990's first reported corrosion between the femoral stem trunnion (usually titanium alloy) and cobalt-chrome alloy femoral head. However, then this condition seemed to disappear for about two decades? There are now numerous recent case series of this problem after metal-on-polyethylene THA, with a single taper or dual taper modular femoral component. Metal ion elevation, corrosion debris, and effusion are caused by mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC). These patients present with diffuse hip pain, simulating trochanteric bursitis, iliopsoas tendinitis, or even deep infection. Trunnion corrosion, with adverse local tissue reaction, is a diagnosis of exclusion, after infection, loosening, or fracture. The initial lab tests recommended are: ESR, CRP, and serum cobalt and chromium ions. With a metal-on-polyethylene THA, a cobalt level > 1ppb is abnormal. Plain radiographs are usually negative, but may show calcar osteolysis or acetabular erosion or cyst. MARS MRI may be the best imaging study to confirm the diagnosis. Hip aspiration for culture and cell-count may be necessary. The operative treatment is empiric, with debridement, and head exchange with a ceramic head-titanium sleeve (or oxidised zirconium head) placed on the cleaned trunnion. The femoral component may have to be removed if there is “whole trunnion failure”. This usually relieves the symptoms, but the complication rate of this procedure may be high.

Using the Mayo Clinic definition (>62mm in women and >66mm in men), the “jumbo acetabular component” is the most successful method for acetabular revisions now, even in hips with severe bone loss. There are numerous advantages: surface contact is maximised; weight-bearing is distributed over a large area of the pelvis; the need for bone grafting is reduced; and usually, hip center of rotation is restored. The possible disadvantages of jumbo cups include: may not restore bone stock; may ream away posterior column or wall; screw fixation required; the possibility of limited bone ingrowth and late failure; and a high rate of dislocation due to acetabular size:femoral head ratio.

The techniques for a successful jumbo revision acetabular component involve: sizing-“reaming” of the acetabulum, careful impaction to achieve a “press-fit”, and multiple screw fixation. We recommend placement of an ischial screw in addition to dome and posterior column screw fixation. Cancellous allograft is used for any cavitary defects. The contra-indications for a jumbo acetabular cup are: pelvic dissociation; inability to get a rim fit; and inability to get screw fixation. If stability cannot be achieved with the jumbo cup alone, then use of augment(s), bulk allograft, or cup-cage construct should be considered.

Using titanium fiber-metal mesh components, we reported the 15-year survival of 129 revisions. There was 3% revision for deep infection and only 3% revision for aseptic loosening. There were 13 reoperations for other reasons: wear, lysis, dislocation, femoral loosening, and femoral fracture fixation. The survival was 97.3% at 10 years, but it dropped to 82.8% at 15 years. Late loosening of this fiber metal mesh component is likely related to polyethylene wear and loss of fixation. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, approximately 10%, and these are multifactorial in etiology and often require revision. Based on our experience, we now recommend use of an acetabular component with an enhanced porous coating (tantalum), highly crosslinked polyethylene, and large femoral heads or dual mobility for all jumbo revisions.

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.

Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with preoperative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Trabecular metal (TM) metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) TM cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and permit use of a short cemented stem. The technique for these cones involve preparing the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphysis. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to cementing into deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the TM cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and intermediate-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 TM cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. TM cones are now the preferred method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA.

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.

Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) was introduced to decrease peri-prosthetic osteolysis related to polyethylene wear, a major reason for revision of total hip arthroplasty. There are few reports of wear and osteolysis at 10 years post-operatively. We asked the following questions: (1) What are the linear and volumetric wear rates of one remelted XLPE at 10–14 years using the Martell method? (2) What is the relationship between volumetric wear, femoral head size, and osteolysis? (3) What is the incidence of osteolysis using conventional radiographs with Judet views and the Martell method?

Methods We evaluated a previously reported cohort of 84 hips (72 patients) with one design of an uncemented acetabular component and one electron-beam irradiated, remelted XLPE at a mean follow-up of 11 years (range 10 to 14 years). Measurements of linear and volumetric wear were performed in one experienced laboratory by the Martell method and standard radiographs, with additional Judet views, were used to detect peri-prosthetic osteolysis. Statistical analysis of wear and osteolysis compared to head size was performed.

Results The mean linear wear rate by the first-to-last method was 0.024 mm/year (median, 0.010 mm/year) and the mean volumetric wear rate by this method was 12.2 mm³/year (median, 3.6 mm³/year). We found no association between femoral head size and linear wear rate. However, there was a significant relationship between femoral head size and volumetric wear rates, with 36/40 mm femoral heads having significantly higher volumetric wear (p=0.02). Small osteolytic lesions were noted in 12 hips (14%), but there was no association with head size, acetabular component position, or linear or volumetric wear rates.

Conclusion This uncemented acetabular component and this particular remelted XLPE had low rates of linear and volumetric wear. Small osteolytic lesions were noted at 10 to 14 years, but were not related to femoral head size, linear or volumetric wear rates.

Wear of the tibial polyethylene liner of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is complex and multifactorial. The issues involved include those of implant design and locking mechanism, surgical-technical variability, and patient weight and activity level. However, tibial polyethylene fabrication, including bar stock, amount of irradiation, quenching of free radicals, and sterilization may also be factors in the long-term survival of TKA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene is now widely used in total hip arthroplasty, but its value and use in TKA is a subject of great controversy. In making a decision to use these products, the surgeon should consider multiple sources of evidence: in-vitro wear testing; clinical cohort studies; randomised controlled trials; registry survival data; and retrieval analyses. The two questions to be asked are: is there a value or benefit in the use of these new polyethylenes, and what are the risks involved with the use of these products?

Laboratory testing, generally to 5 million cycles, has shown a significant decrease in tibial polyethylene wear of several products, with both cruciate-retaining and substituting designs, and under adverse conditions. Retrospective cohort studies and RCTs comparing conventional and highly crosslinked polyethylene have shown little difference between the two products at mean follow-up times of 5 years. One registry study showed no difference in the rate of revision at short-term follow-up, but the Australian Joint Replacement Registry in 2014 did report a decreased rate of revision for loosening and osteolysis in “young patients” with one particular tibial polyethylene.

The risks of the use of highly crosslinked polyethylene include fracture (the tibial liner, PS post, and patella pegs), and particle size-reactivity. However, these risks appear to be quite low. Retrieval data shows lower damage scores with certain polyethylenes, and variable changes in the oxidation score.

At present, the data does not support the widespread or routine use of highly crosslinked or antioxidant polyethylene in TKA. However, consideration should be given for use of certain products in young and active patients. Longer-term follow-up will ultimately determine the role of highly crosslinked polyethylene in TKA.

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 four years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. Some surgeons in USA suggest routine use in primary hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility is to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty.

Recent biomechanical data suggests that, in a 3D CT scan-cadaver hip model, there is no difference in range of motion between a 36mm head and an ADM dual mobility component sizes 50–56mm. There is little wear data on dual mobility components, except from one implant manufacturer. It is feared that there is a “3rd articulation” in dual mobility components—the routine impingement of the femoral neck against the polyethylene femoral head. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for these dual mobility components at short- to medium-term follow-up times. There are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intra-prosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data.

Big femoral heads (36mm and 40mm) articulating with highly cross-linked, e-beam, remelted, polyethylene are a better choice in primary total hip arthroplasty, to decrease the frequency of dislocation in “high risk” patients. Although the risk of early dislocation was 4% in “high risk” patients, there was no recurrence, no revision, and no late first dislocation. Until further long-term results are available, caution is advised in the routine use of dual mobility components in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Using the Mayo Clinic definition (>62mm in women and >66mm in men), the “jumbo acetabular component” is the most commonly used method for acetabular revisions now. There are numerous advantages: surface contact is maximised; weight-bearing is distributed over a large area of the pelvis; the need for bone grafting is reduced; and usually, hip center of rotation is restored. The possible disadvantages, or caveats, of jumbo cups include: may not restore bone stock; may ream away posterior column or wall; screw fixation required; the possibility of limited bone ingrowth and late failure; and a high rate of dislocation due to acetabular size:femoral head ratio.

The techniques for a successful jumbo revision acetabular component involve: sizing-“reaming” of the acetabulum, careful impaction to achieve a “press-fit”, and multiple screw fixation. We recommend placement of an ischial screw in addition to dome and posterior column screw fixation. Cancellous allograft is used for any cavitary defects. The contraindications for a jumbo acetabular cup are: pelvic dissociation; inability to get a rim fit; inability to get screw fixation; and the presence of <50% living host bone. If stability cannot be achieved with the jumbo cup alone, then use of augment(s), bulk allograft, or cup-cage construct should be considered.

Our results with the jumbo acetabular cups in revision arthroplasty have been reported. Using predominantly titanium fiber-metal mesh components, we reported the 15-year survival of 129 revisions. There was 3% revision for deep infection and only 3% revision for aseptic loosening. There were 13 reoperations for other reasons: wear, lysis, dislocation, femoral loosening, and femoral fracture fixation. The survival was 97.3% at 10 years, but it dropped to 82.8% at 15 years. Late loosening of this fiber metal mesh component is likely related to polyethylene wear and loss of fixation. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, approximately 10%, and these are multifactorial in etiology and often require revision. Based on our experience, we now recommend use of an acetabular component with an enhanced porous coating (tantalum), highly cross-linked polyethylene, and large femoral heads for all jumbo revisions.

The use of constrained condylar components (CCK) in primary total knee arthroplasty is infrequent and unusual. The usual indications are a severe fixed valgus deformity with a stretched or incompetent medial collateral ligament (MCL). This may occur in an elderly female patient with valgus osteoarthritis, advanced rheumatoid arthritis, or other less common disorders: polio, Parkinson's disease, and Paget's disease involving the knee. It may also be seen in younger patients with post-traumatic arthritis. Beware of the patient with a prior history of a knee injury in which staples were placed at the medial epicondyle of the femur or proximal tibia, indicating likely MCL injury, or a knee with extensive medial joint heterotopic ossification. An unusual indication for a primary CCK component is inadvertent injury or sectioning of the MCL during the procedure. This can occur with over-zealous medial ligament release or division with the saw during the posterior femoral condylar or proximal tibial resection. This has been reported to occur in <1% to 2.7% of knees. Treatment alternatives are to attempt repair and brace the knee or perform “internal bracing” with a CCK component. The author strongly favors the use of CCK components in this situation. We permit early full-weightbearing and range of motion, without restrictions. Careful intraoperative attention to component rotation is crucial to avoid patellar complications. The results of CCK components by the author and others have demonstrated a high rate of survival at 10 years, even in younger patients.

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.