Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a frequent cause of revision and patients with intrinsic risk factors have been identified. The use of dual mobility (DM) cup has shown great efficiency in preventing dislocation, with questions regarding selective or absolute use. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of single mobility THA (SM-THA) and DM-THA, when used for selected patients.

This retrospective continuous cohort study evaluated 490 patients of whom 275 received SM-THA and 215 received DM-THA. There were 304 primary osteoarthritis (62%), 121 femoral neck fractures (24%) and 65 other indications (14%). The surgical approach was anterior (AA) in 79% and posterior (PA) in 21% of cases. In the DM-THA group, 189 patients (87%) presented at least one dislocation risk factor compared to 128 patients (46%) in the SM-THA group. The primary outcome was revision for all causes, with or without implant removal. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay.

There was no difference in all cause revision at two years follow up with 9 procedures (3.2%) in SM-THA group and 11 in DM-THA group (5.1%) (p=0.3). There were 3 dislocations in SM-THA group (3 AA) and 3 in DM-THA group (2 PA and 1 AA) (p=0.4).

The length of stay was significantly longer in DM-THA group with 7 days (2–12) compared to 4 days (1–7) in SM-THA group (p=0.001).

SM-THA and DM-THA are two complementary devices in the management of patients requiring primary THA. SM-THA is a safe option for patients without dislocation risk factors, especially when using AA. The identification of such factors is important to select patients requiring DM-THA and provide reproducible outcomes in a University Hospital practice including various levels of surgeon experience.

Dual mobility cups (DMC) reduce the risk of dislocation in femoral neck fractures (FNF). Direct anterior approach (DAA), historically promoted for better stability, has been developed in recent years for better functional results. The aim of this study was to compare the early functional results of DMC in FNF by DAA versus posterolateral approach (PLA).

A prospective study was conducted on a continuous series of patients who received DMC for FNF by DAA or PLA. The primary endpoint was Harris Hip Score and Parker score assessed at the first follow-up visit. Intraoperative complications were collected during hospitalization. One year clinical results and all cause revision rate were also collected. Radiographic data of cup positioning and limb length were evaluated.

Fifty-two patients were included in the DAA group and 54 in the PLA group. Two patients were lost to follow-up. The mean age was 72.8 years. There was no significant difference in HHS or Parker score at 3 and 12 months follow up (p=0.6, p= 0.75). DAA was associated with more intraoperative complications with 4 fractures and 1 femoral nerve deficit (p=0.018). There were 3 revisions in the DAA group (1 infection, 1 dislocation, 1 peri prosthetic fracture) and 1 in the PLA group (infection), which was not statistically significant (p=0.34). Cup anteversion was 6° greater and inclination 9° lesser in DAA group (p=0.028, p<0.01).

Results suggest that DAA does not provide any early functional benefit in THA-DMC for FNF compared to PLA. It could lead to more intraoperative complications and a higher revision rate. DAA requires an experienced surgeon and careful patient selection.