Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Complication of intraprosthetic dislocation of dual-mobility hip implant following closed reduction
  1. Navin Mukundu Nagesh,
  2. Nimesh Patel,
  3. Jonathan Howell
  1. Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
  1. Correspondence to Navin Mukundu Nagesh, navinmukundunagesh{at}gmail.com

Summary

Total hip replacement is a successful operation for the management of hip pain but there are potential complications, of which dislocation is one of the most common. The management of recurrent dislocation is a challenging problem that requires a multimodal approach and the use of dual-mobility implants is one option. We present a patient who was previously revised with a dual-mobility implant for recurrent dislocation, who had a complication after closed reduction of a subsequent intraprosthetic dislocation. Following a missed radiographical diagnosis, the patient experienced mechanical symptoms on hip flexion caused by a disassociated dual-mobility implant. Subsequent surgical removal of the failed implant and revision was required. Careful study of radiographs revealed an eccentric femoral head and evidence of the disassociated implant within the surrounding soft tissues. Radiographs following closed reduction of intraprosthetic dislocations should be scrutinised closely to detect implant failure to prevent further complications.

  • hip implants
  • hip prosthesis implantation
  • prosthesis failure
  • intraprosthetic dislocation
  • total hip replacement
  • dual mobility implant

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors NMN: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. NP: drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content and also formally undertook the consent process for the patient described in this case. JH: final approval of the version published.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.