Abstract
Aims
The benefit of a dual-mobility acetabular component (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the dislocation and complication rates when using a DMC compared to single-mobility (SM) acetabular component in primary elective THA using data collected at a single centre, and compare the revision rates and survival outcomes in these two groups.
Methods
Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THAs using either a cementless DM or SM acetabular component were included. Indications for DMC were patients aged older than 70 years or with high risk of dislocation. All other patients received a SM acetabular component. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, patients treated for femoral neck fracture, and follow-up of less than one year. In total, 1,940 THAs were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%) and 791 SM (40.8%). The mean age was 73 years (SD 9.2) in the DMC group and 57 years (SD 12) in the SM group. Complications and revisions have been analyzed retrospectively.
Results
The mean follow-up was 41.9 months (SD 14; 12 to 134). There were significantly fewer dislocations in the DMC group (n = 2; 0.17%) compared to the SM group (n = 8; 1%) (p = 0.019). The femoral head size did not influence the dislocation rate in the SM group (p = 0.702). The overall complication rate in the DMC group was 5.1% (n = 59) and in the SM group was 6.7% (n = 53); these were not statistically different (p = 0.214). No specific complications were attributed to the use of DMCs. In the DMC group, 18 THAs (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THAs in the SM group (1.9%) (p = 0.709). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The acetabular component aseptic revision-free survival rates at five years were 98% in the DMC group and 97.3% in the SM group (p = 0.780).
Conclusion
The use of a monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than SM component in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of component-specific complications or revisions with DMCs in this large cohort.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):81–88.
