No Difference in Dislocation Rates Comparing Large Diameter Jumbo Femoral Heads and Dual-Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundDual-mobility (DM) bearings reduce instability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM bearings are costly and reports of corrosion have recently emerged. Furthermore, no study has compared DM to standard bearings with large diameter femoral heads ≥40-mm. This study’s purpose was to compare postoperative dislocation rates of standard and DM bearings with large femoral heads after revision THA.MethodsA retrospective review of 301 consecutive revision THAs was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.1 months. To isolate the effect of the double articulation, standard and DM bearings with femoral heads ≥40-mm were compared. Outcomes were postoperative dislocation and reoperation within 90 days.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 182 standard bearings and 75 DM bearings. There were no differences in revision indication comparing standard and DM bearings (P = .258). Overall dislocation rate was 8.6% (22 of 257). The dislocation rate was 5.7% for standard bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads compared with 6.9% in DM bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads (P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, lower body mass index (odds ratio 1.72), female sex (odds ratio 2.01), and decreased outer femoral head diameter–to–cup component size ratio (odds ratio 1.64) were predictors of postoperative dislocation regardless of bearing type.ConclusionThis study showed no difference in dislocation rates between standard and DM bearings when comparing similar femoral head diameters of ≥40-mm used in revision THAs. Considering the cost and potential deleterious issues associated with additional interfaces, DM bearings should be used judiciously considering similar results may be achieved with single-articulation bearings using large femoral heads.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BackgroundDual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.MethodsData from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.ResultsThere were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.ConclusionThere is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Dual Mobility hip replacement in hip fractures offer functional equivalence and a stability advantage - A case-controlled study.

BackgroundHip fracture is a common and serious injury in the elderly. Hip arthroplasty is the most frequently performed procedure for patients with an  intracapsular hip fracture. The majority of national guidelines recommend total hip arthroplasty (THA) for more active patients. Literature indicates significant stability advantages for dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in non-emergent scenarios. Evidence supporting the use of DM in hip fracture patients is limited.AimWe set out to ascertain if DM implants offer stability and/or functional advantages over standard THA in patients with hip fracture.MethodsWe utilised our local National Hip Fracture Database to identify all patients undergoing either a standard or DM THA for hip fracture (n=477) We matched cohorts based on age, AMTS, mobility status pre-operatively, gender, ASA and source of admission. Our primary outcome of interest was functional status using the oxford hip score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures included  dislocation, fracture and deep infection requiring further surgery.Results62 patient pairs were available for this study. Mean OHS for DM THA was 41.5 and for standard THA this was 42.7 (p=0.58). There were 4 dislocations in the standard THA group and 0 with DM THA. No difference was seen with infection or peri-prosthetic fracture.ConclusionThis study demonstrates functional equivalence between DM and standard THA. In addition it shows a trend towards less dislocation with DM THA. Cost savings from less instability may outweigh initial prosthesis costs. This study suggests a suitably powered RCT using instability as the primary outcome measure is indicated.     

Does Surgical Approach Influence the Natural History of the Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BackgroundDislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a significant complication that occurs in 0.3%-10% of cases with 13%-42% of patients requiring revision surgery. The literature has primarily focused on the dislocation risk associated with different surgical approaches. However, little is known about the natural history of the dislocated hip and whether surgical approach of the index THA is associated with further instability and revision surgery.MethodsThis is a retrospective, single-center, multi-surgeon consecutive case series of all patients who experienced THA dislocation from 2002 to 2020. Patients were excluded if the initial dislocation was secondary to infection or fracture. The natural history of the cohort as per approach was determined. Outcome measurements of interest were the number of dislocations; the treatment surrounding each dislocation; the necessity and type of revision; and the complications encountered.ResultsOf the 75 patients, 58 (77%) dislocated within 6 months following primary THA. The anterior group had greater odds of dislocation within 2 weeks post-THA compared to the lateral and posterior groups (P = .04). The mean number of dislocations per patient was significantly lower in the anterior (1.5 ± 0.7) compared to the lateral (2.4 ± 1.2) and posterior (2.1 ± 1.0) groups (P = .02). Revision surgery was needed in 30% (6/20) of patients in the anterior, 69% (25/36) of the posterior, and 68% (13/19) of the lateral groups (P = .01).ConclusionThis study illustrates that while primary THA dislocations happen earlier with the anterior approach, they are typically less complicated and have a lower risk of recurrent instability and revision surgery.     

Dual-Mobility vs Fixed-Bearing Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Under 55 Years of Age: A Single-Institution,Matched-Cohort Analysis

Background

Prosthetic dislocation of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common cause for revision surgery. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings were introduced to mitigate complications; however, their performance in younger patients is unknown. This study compared results of patients <55 years of age with DM vs fixed-bearing (FB) primary THA.

Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options

BackgroundHip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners.MethodsAll aseptic 1^st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk.ResultsThere were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1^st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2^nd revision. The most common reasons for 2^nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2^nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2^nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years.ConclusionThe outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.     

Unconstrained tripolar implants for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at risk for dislocation

We performed a retrospective study on 167 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures in 163 patients at high risk for instability to assess the reliability of unconstrained tripolar implants (press-fit outer metal shell articulating a bipolar polyethylene component) in preventing dislocations. Eighty-four percent of the patients had at least 2 risk factors for dislocation. The mean follow-up length was 40.2 months. No dislocation was observed. Harris hip scores improved significantly. Six hips were revised, and no aseptic loosening of the cup was observed. The tripolar implant was extremely successful in achieving stability. However, because of the current lack of data documenting polyethylene wear at additional bearing, the routine use of tripolar implants in primary THA is discouraged and should be considered at the present time only for selected patients at high risk for dislocation and with limited activities.     

Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Contemporary Monoblock Dual-Mobility Cup in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe efficacy of contemporary monoblock dual-mobility (DM) cups to prevent dislocations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well reported, but there is little published data on their mid- to long-term outcomes. The authors aimed at reporting the 10-year survival of a contemporary DM cup as well as its clinical and radiographic outcomes.MethodsFrom a retrospective consecutive multicentric series of 516 patients (541 hips) that received uncemented THA between June 2007 and June 2010, 6 patients (6 hips) had cup and stem revisions, 5 patients (5 hips) had isolated stem revision, and 2 patients (2 hips) had isolated insert revision. A total of 103 patients (111 hips) died with their original implants, and 41 patients (42 hips) were lost to follow-up. This left 358 patients (375 hips) for clinical assessment at a median follow-up of 8.7 years (range, 6.8-10.5 years), including 279 patients (290 hips) with postoperative radiographs. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine whether clinical outcomes are associated with patient or surgical factors.ResultsThe 10-year survival considering revision for aseptic loosening as end point was 100% for the cup and 99.2% for the stem. No dislocations were observed, and radiographic assessment revealed 1 acetabular granuloma (0.3%), but no radiolucencies nor fractures. The Harris hip score improved from 49.6 ± 15.5 to 85.2 ± 14.5, and the postoperative Oxford hip score was 19.2 ± 7.6. Multivariable analyses revealed that improvement in Harris hip score increased with cup diameter (beta, 1.28; P = .039).ConclusionOur data confirmed satisfactory midterm outcomes of uncemented THA using a contemporary DM cup, with no dislocations nor cup revisions due to aseptic loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, retrospective cohort study.     

Simultaneous bilateral dual mobility total hip arthroplasty dislocation in a patient with hepatic encephalopathy: A case report

Introduction and importanceDislocation is a severe complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is one of the most common reasons for failure and revision surgery. This is the first case of a documented simultaneous bilateral dual mobility (DM) THA dislocation.Case presentationA forty-nine-year-old man presented with bilateral hip pain, immobility and deformity. X-ray images demonstrated simultaneous bilateral posterior THA dislocation. Previously, the patient had presented atraumatic dislocations recurrently. When he was thoroughly re-interrogated, he complained of uncontrolled and generalized muscle contractions, which were compatible with myoclonus due to hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Multidisciplinary treatment was performed satisfactorily to control myoclonus symptomatology and to prevent dislocation.Clinical discussionPatient’s most important risk factor was a neuromuscular disorder, which we initially gave little notice and undervalued. HE is a serious but reversible syndrome, observed in patients with liver dysfunction. It leads to a wide spectrum of neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Management is based on prevention of episodes, avoiding the underlying triggers.Due to the high risk for dislocation of our patient, we decided to use DM cups bilaterally. This system has demonstrated lower rates of dislocation.ConclusionThis case report reminds us that a careful evaluation through meticulous history and physical examination are mandatory when faced with recurrent instability. Furthermore, prevention of dislocation is vastly preferable to treating this challenging complication. High-risk patients should be identified, and appropriate surgical approach, technique and implants have to be collectively used to reach a strategy that mitigates and ideally prevents dislocation.     

Utilizing Dual Mobility Components for First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Instability

Background

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant clinical problem. Few studies have focused on the use of dual mobility (DM) components in the setting of first-time revision for instability following THA. Here, we investigate patient outcomes following first-time revision THA with DM components for a diagnosis of instability.

Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision—Is It Safe?

BackgroundRevision of monoblock metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with high complication rates. Limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component extraction may mitigate these complications. However, the concern for polyethylene wear and osteolysis remains unsettled. This study investigates the results of DM conversion of monoblock MoM THA compared to formal acetabular revision.MethodsOne hundred forty-three revisions of monoblock MoM THA were reviewed. Twenty-nine were revisions to a DM construct, and 114 were complete revisions of the acetabular component. Mean patient age was 61, 54% were women. Components used, acetabular cup position, radiographic outcomes, serum metal ion levels, and HOOS Jr clinical outcome scores were investigated.ResultsAt 3.9 years of follow-up (range 2-5), there were 2 revisions (6.9%) in the DM cohort, 1 for instability and another for periprosthetic fracture. Among the formal acetabular revision group there was a 20% major complication rate (23/114) and 16% underwent revision surgery (18/114) for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), acetabular fracture (3%), or delayed wound healing (6%). In the DM cohort, there were no radiographic signs of aseptic loosening, component migration, or polyethylene wear. One DM patient had a small posterior metadiaphyseal femur lesion that will require close monitoring. There were no other radiographic signs of osteolysis. There were no clinically significant elevations of serum metal ion levels. HOOS Jr scores were favorable.ConclusionLimited revision with conversion to DM is a viable treatment option for failed monoblock MoM THA with lower complication rates than formal revision. Limited revision to DM appears to be a safe option for revision of monoblock MoM THA with a cup in good position and an internal geometry free of sharp edges or articular surface damage. Longer follow-up is needed to demonstrate any potential wear implications of these articulations.     

Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation

Background and purpose Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to recurrent dislocations is associated with a high risk of persistent instability. We hypothesized that the use of dual-mobility cups would reduce the risk of re-revision due to dislocation after revision THA.

Patients and methods 228 THA cup revisions (in 228 patients) performed due to recurrent dislocations and employing a specific dual-mobility cup (Avantage) were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with re-revision due to dislocation as the primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as the secondary endpoint. Cox regression models were fitted in order to calculate the influence of various covariates on the risk of re-revision.

Results 58 patients (25%) had been revised at least once prior to the index cup revision. The surgical approach at the index cup revision was lateral in 99 cases (44%) and posterior in 124 cases (56%). Median follow-up was 2 (0–6) years after the index cup revision, and by then 18 patients (8%) had been re-revised for any reason. Of these, 4 patients (2%) had been re-revised due to dislocation. Survival after 2 years with the endpoint revision of any component due to dislocation was 99% (95% CI: 97–100), and it was 93% (CI: 90–97) with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason. Risk factors for subsequent re-revision for any reason were age between 50–59 years at the time of the index cup revision (risk ratio (RR) = 5 when compared with age > 75, CI: 1–23) and previous revision surgery to the relevant joint (RR = 1.7 per previous revision, CI: 1–3).

Interpretation The risk of re-revision due to dislocation after insertion of dual-mobility cups during revision THA performed for recurrent dislocations appears to be low in the short term. Since most dislocations occur early after revision THA, we believe that this device adequately addresses the problem of recurrent instability. Younger age and prior hip revision surgery are risk factors for further revision surgery. However, problems such as potentially increased liner wear and subsequent aseptic loosening may be associated with the use of such devices in the long term.     

Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Parkinson Disease: Improved Outcomes With Dual Mobility Implants and Cementless Fixation

Background

Parkinson disease (PD) results in severe limitation in ambulation caused by abnormality of gait and posture. The rate of complications, including fractures and dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA), can be higher among these patients. The goal of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of primary and revision THAs with cementless dual mobility implants.

Acetabular Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision: A Summary of Operative Factors,Outcomes, and Comparison of Approaches

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents a greater risk to patients than primary THA, and surgical approach may impact outcomes. This study aimed to summarize acetabular revisions at our institution and to compare outcomes between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.MethodsA series of 379 acetabular revision THAs performed from January 2010 through August 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors were summarized for all revisions and compared between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.ResultsThe average time to acetabular revision THA was 10 years (range, 0.04 to 44.1), with mechanical failure (36.7%) and metallosis (25.6%) being the most prevalent reasons for revision. No differences in age, body mass index, or sex were noted between groups. Anterior revision patients had a significantly shorter length of stay (2.2 versus 3.2 days, P = .003) and rate of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (7.5 versus 25.2%, P = .008). In the 90-day postoperative period, 9.2% of patients returned to the emergency department (n = 35) and twelve patients (3.2%) experienced a dislocation. There were 13.2% (n = 50) of patients having a rerevision during the follow-up period with a significant difference between anterior and posterior approaches (3.8 versus 14.7%, respectively, P = .049).ConclusionThis study provides some evidence that the anterior approach may be protective against skilled nursing facility discharge and rerevision and contributes to decreased lengths of stay. We recommend surgeons select the surgical approach for revision THA based on clinical preferences and patient factors.     

Can Dislocation Rates Be Decreased Using the Anterior Approach in Patients With Lumbar Spondylosis or Lumbar Instrumented Fusion?

BackgroundAlthough spinopelvic stiffness is known to contribute to instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA), it is unknown whether use of an anterior surgical approach is associated with decreased postoperative instability rates in patients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of 1750 patients who underwent primary THA at our institution over an 8-year time period. Radiographic and chart review was performed evaluating for dislocations. Lumbar and pelvic radiographs were used to identify the presence of spondylosis and/or instrumented fusion. Patients were then divided into non-spondylosis and spondylosis or fusion groups to compare dislocation rates by surgical approach.ResultsIn total, 54.4% of THA patients had an anterior approach (n = 952) and 54.6% had lumbar spondylosis or instrumented fusion (n = 956). There were 29 dislocations in total (1.7%), with less occurring in anterior approach patients (0.6% vs 2.9%, P < .001). In the patients without lumbar spondylosis, there were less dislocations in the anterior approach group (0.2% vs 1.7%, P = .048). Likewise, in patients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion, there were less dislocations in the anterior approach group (1.0% vs 3.8%, P = .004). Using logistic regression, there was a 4.1× increased risk of dislocation with a posterior approach vs an anterior approach in the spondylosis or fusion group (P = .011).ConclusionPatients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion have high rates of instability. At our institution, we found that utilization of an anterior surgical approach substantially mitigated this risk.     

Increased Synovial Inflammatory Markers in Aseptic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation

BackgroundIn cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, a synovial fluid aspiration is often performed to evaluate for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It is currently unclear how aseptic dislocation of a THA influences synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear percentage (PMN%). The primary aim of this study is to investigate the influence of THA dislocation on synovial WBC count and PMN%.MethodsTwenty-eight patients who underwent a synovial aspiration of a THA between 2014 and 2019 were identified and enrolled in our case-control study. Patients with an aseptic THA dislocation and synovial hip aspiration were matched against patients without dislocation, patients undergoing hip aspiration before aseptic THA revision surgery, and patients undergoing hip aspiration before septic THA revision surgery.ResultsSynovial WBC count was significantly increased in the dislocation vs aseptic THA revision group (P = .015), as well as between the septic revision group vs dislocation and aseptic THA revision group (both P < .001). The PMN% did not differ significantly between the dislocation and aseptic revision groups (P = .294). Mean C-reactive protein values were 12.4 ± 14.9 mg/dL in THA dislocation, 24.1 ± 37.7 mg/dL in THA without infection compared to 85.7 ± 84.9 mg/dL in THA infection group (P < .001).ConclusionThis study shows that THA dislocation has a significant impact on synovial WBC count in joint aspiration. Our data suggest that in the setting of THA dislocation, synovial WBC and PMN% may not be the best method to evaluate for PJI. Further research should be performed to establish new thresholds for these synovial inflammatory markers in the setting of THA dislocation and PJI.Level of evidenceLevel III; retrospective trial.     

An Analysis of a National Administrative Dataset Demonstrating No Evidence of Increase in Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation Rates When Postoperative Hip Precautions are Not Used

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a higher dislocation rate when postoperative hip precautions are not used for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsA survey was conducted of the hip precautions used by orthopaedic departments in England performing elective primary THA. From the responses to the survey an interrupted time series analysis was performed using the hospital admissions data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database during the period April 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019 and subsequent dislocations of these prostheses up to June 30, 2020. These were used to determine dislocations within 180 days of primary surgery and emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge.ResultsRecords were reviewed from 229,057 patients receiving primary, elective THA across 114 hospitals. In total, 1,807 (0.8%) dislocations were recorded within 180 days of surgery. There were 12,416 (5.4%) emergency readmissions within 30 days of surgery. Within hospitals where hip precautions were stopped, the proportion of patients having a dislocation was 0.8% both before and after stopping precautions, with a significant postintervention trend towards fewer dislocations (P < .001). There was also a significant immediate change in median length of stay from 4 to 3 days (P < .001) but no significant trend in the proportion of emergency readmissions within 30 days.ConclusionThere is no evidence of an increase in early dislocation or 30-day readmission rates after stopping traditional postoperative hip precautions in primary THA. Potential reductions in length of stay will reduce the risks associated with an extended hospital admission, improve service efficiency, and reduce costs.     

Risk Factors for Dislocation and Re-revision After First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty due to Recurrent Dislocation – A Study From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BackgroundPersistent instability after hip revision is a serious problem. Our aim was to analyze surgical and patient-related risk factors for both a new dislocation and re-revision after first-time hip revision due to dislocation.MethodsWe included patients with a primary THA due to osteoarthritis and a first-time revision due to dislocation registered in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) from 1996 to 2016. We identified dislocations in the Danish National Patient Register and re-revisions in the DHR. Risk factors were analyzed by a multivariable regression analysis adjusting for the competing risk of death. Results are presented as subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR).ResultsWe identified 1678 first-time revisions due to dislocation. Of these, 22.4% had a new dislocation. 19.8% were re-revised for any reason. With new dislocations treated by closed reduction as the endpoint, the sHR was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27-0.48) for those who had a constrained liner (CL) during revision and 0.21 (0.08-0.58) for dual mobility cups (DMC), thereby lowering the risk of dislocation compared to regular liners. Changing only the head/liner increased the risk of dislocation (sHR = 2.65; 2.05-3.42) compared to full cup revisions. The protective effect of CLs and DMCs on dislocations vanished when re-revisions became the endpoint. The head/liner exchange was still found inferior compared to cup revision (sHR = 1.73; 1.34-2.23).ConclusionPatients revised with DMCs and CLs were associated with a lower risk of dislocation after a first-time revision but not re-revision, whereas only changing the head/liner was associated with a higher risk of dislocation and re-revision of any cause compared to cup revision.     

Modern Dual-Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the outcomes of dual-mobility (DM) cups in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Specifically, we evaluated the following: (1) all-cause and aseptic survivorship rates; (2) dislocation rates; (3) complications; and (4) clinical outcomes reported using validated health status measures.