Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Cause of irreducible dislocation of a re-revision THR
  1. Evelyn Patricia Murphy1,
  2. Christopher Fenelon2,
  3. Shane Russell1,
  4. Finbarr Condon1
  1. 1Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Limerick University Hospital, Limerick, Ireland
  2. 2Limerick Univeristy Hospital, Limerick, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Evelyn Patricia Murphy, evelynmurphy{at}hotmail.com

Summary

Instability or recurrent dislocations are a common reason for revision of total hip replacements (THRs). Dual-mobility constructs can help improve stability by increasing the femoral head jump distance. These constructs are used to decrease the risk of re-revision in the setting of recurrent dislocation. This case describes an unusual case of irreducible dislocation of a re-revision THR due to intraprosthetic dislocation. The patient required open reduction and revision of this construct to a tripolar implant. This is important to appreciate from an emergency medicine point of view as repeated attempts at reduction will be fruitless and may result in a femur fracture. This particular type of dislocation is very rare. Perioperative considerations should include early referral to the orthopaedic team for reduction in theatre, and having a low threshold for open reduction. Revision options should be available when bringing a case like this to the operating theatre.

  • hip prosthesis implantation
  • prosthesis failure

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 EPM prepared the manuscript. CF edited the manuscript. SR provided the images. FC performed revision operations and proofread manuscript.

  • 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.