Dual mobility versus unipolar total hip arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures: a single centre study

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Current national guidelines (NICE) recommends that all medically fit, independently-mobile patients without cognitive impairment receive a total hip arTHAoplasty(THA) for displaced intracapsular neck of femur (NOF) fractures. Dislocation is a concern(2-10%). Dual mobility cups have been suggested to address this complication. Our study sets out to compare dislocation rates between dual mobility cups versus unipolar cups. We performed a retrospective single centre multiple surgeon study of all THAs performed for NOFs between January 2012 and May 2018. A total of 322 total hip replacements (127 dual mobility and 195 unipolar; Age range of patients, 29 to 91, mean 70 years) were identified for analysis using a database. Data was obtained from electronic patient records and radiographs. 12 patients sustained a dislocation of their THA out of our 322 patients. Of these, 10 dislocations occurred in the unipolar group (5.13%). From the dual mobility cups, 2 had dislocations(1.57%), both with a 28mm head. Both of these dislocations were in alcohol dependent patients with increased susceptibility to falls. Statistical analysis of our data was performed using chi-squared test (p value = 0.0723) In ‘Getting It Right First Time’ (GIRFT), the authors recommend that all patients that sustain a NOF fracture meeting the criteria of a THA to be offered a dual mobility acetabular cup to reduce the risk of dislocation. The cost of the dual mobility acetabular cup is offset from the cost of overall revision surgery. Limitations of our study are its retrospective nature and selection bias.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sadozai, Z., Limb, R., Awais Bokhari, S., Aaron, N. G., & Bhamra, M. (2021). Dual mobility versus unipolar total hip arthroplasty for neck of femur fractures: a single centre study. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 87(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.52628/87.1.05

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free