Mallett, Katherine E.

AimsDual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD.MethodsA total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management.ResultsThe incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation.ConclusionThe overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):98–104.

Background: Dual-mobility (DM) implants reduce the risk of dislocation in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM implants are at risk for large-head dislocation and intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), where the inner femoral head dissociates from the outer polyethylene head. This study aimed to report the incidence of DM dislocation and IPD, evaluate the rate of recognition of IPD before and after reduction, investigate the outcomes of these complications, and provide treatment recommendations for their management. Methods: Between 2010 and 2021, 695 primary and 758 revision THAs were performed with DM constructs at a single institution. There were 44 large-head dislocations (3.0%) and 10 IPDs (0.7%). Four additional IPDs occurred during attempted closed reduction, increasing the IPD incidence to 0.96%. We reviewed prior instability history, dislocation management, success of reduction, recognition of IPD, and subsequent rates of revision and complications. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years. Results: Nine of 10 IPDs were missed at presentation and thus not treated as such. Sixty-three percent of attempted closed reductions in the emergency department failed and led to 4 IPDs and 1 periprosthetic fracture. Reduction success was associated with the following factors: use of general anesthesia with paralysis (p = 0.02), having the reduction performed by an orthopaedist (p = 0.03), and undergoing only 1 reduction attempt (p = 0.015). Two-thirds of dislocations required revision. The rate of redislocation was 33%, and 5 hips required subsequent revision at a mean of 1.8 years after the initial dislocation. Conclusions: We present an evaluation of DM-implant dislocation and dissociation along with management recommendations based on these data. Given the low success and high complication rates of attempted closed reduction and the need for eventual revision, we recommend that all patients with dislocated DM implants be brought to the operating room for closed reduction as well as potential revision if the reduction fails. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: When treating upper-extremity infections, clinicians frequently must decide whether to initiate antibiotics or delay them with the goal of optimizing culture yield at the time of surgical debridement. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the administration of preoperative antibiotics affects intraoperative culture yield and whether there is a “safe” interval prior to culture acquisition within which antibiotics can be administered without affecting culture yield. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 470 consecutive patients who underwent debridement for a presumed acute infection of the hand, wrist, or forearm at a single tertiary care center between January 2015 and May 2020. Data including patient demographics, mechanism of infection and affected body part(s), and details of antibiotic administration, including type and timing with respect to culture acquisition, were collected. Results: Three hundred and forty-one patients (73%) received preoperative antibiotics prior to debridement and culture acquisition. The rate of positive cultures among patients who received preoperative antibiotics was 81% compared with 95% among patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotics (p < 0.01; odds ratio, 4.73). Even a single dose of antibiotics imparted a significantly increased risk of obtaining negative intraoperative cultures, and an incremental increase in the likelihood of obtaining negative cultures was seen with each preoperative dose given up to 7 doses. We did not identify a “safe” interval of time between antibiotic administration and culture acquisition such that culture yield was not affected. Conclusions: Patients who received preoperative antibiotics for the treatment of upper-extremity infections were approximately 5 times more likely to have negative cultures at the time of debridement than those who did not receive preoperative antibiotics. This effect persisted regardless of the number of doses given or the interval between antibiotic administration and culture acquisition. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.