Aims The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135.

AimsThe aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).Patients and MethodsA total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (sd 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision.ResultsOf the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients.ConclusionOur experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536–539.

Higher morbidity and use of hospital resources are associated with this cohort of patients. PJIs in total knee replacements and positive MRSA status are associated with higher rates of second infection. Identifying this vulnerable cohort of patients at an early stage is critical to ensure measures are taken to reduce the risks of further infection.