Dual mobility cups have two points of articulation, one between the shell and the polyethylene (external bearing) and one between the polyethylene and the femoral head (internal bearing). Movement occurs at the inner bearing; the outer bearing only moves at extremes of movement. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a cause of much morbidity and its treatment has significant cost implications. Dual mobility cups provide an increased range of movement and a may reduce the risk of dislocation. . This paper reviews the use of these cups in THA, particularly where stability is an issue. Dual mobility cups may be of benefit in primary THA in patients at a high risk of dislocation, such as those who are older with increased comorbidities and a higher American Association of Anesthesiology grade and those with a neuromuscular disease. They may be used at revision surgery where the risk of dislocation is high, such as in patients with many prior dislocations, or those with abductor deficiency. They may also be used in THA for displaced fractures of the femoral neck, which has a notoriously high rate of dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):60–3

Aims. Dislocation remains a significant complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), being the third leading indication for revision. We present a series of acetabular revision using a dual mobility cup (DMC) and compare this with our previous series using the posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD). Methods. A retrospective review of patients treated with either a DMC or PLAD for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA was performed. They were identified using electronic patient records (EPR). EPR data and radiographs were evaluated to determine operating time, length of stay, and the incidence of complications and recurrent dislocation postoperatively. Results. A total of 28 patients underwent revision using a DMC for dislocation following Charnley THA between 2013 and 2017. The rate of recurrent dislocation and overall complications were compared with those of a previous series of 54 patients who underwent revision for dislocation using a PLAD, between 2007 and 2013. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean distribution of sex or age between the groups. The mean operating time was 71 mins (45 to 113) for DMCs and 43 mins (21 to 84) for PLADs (p = 0.001). There were no redislocations or revisions in the DMC group at a mean follow-up of 55 months (21 to 76), compared with our previous series of PLAD which had a redislocation rate of 16% (n = 9) and an overall revision rate of 25% (n = 14, p = 0.001) at a mean follow-up of 86 months (45 to 128). Conclusion. These results indicate that DMC outperforms PLAD as a treatment for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA. This should therefore be the preferred form of treatment for these patients despite a slightly longer operating time. Work is currently ongoing to review outcomes of DMC over a longer follow-up period. PLAD should be used with caution in this patient group with preference given to acetabular revision to DMC. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):423–425

The benefit of dual mobility cup (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) is still controversial. This study aimed to compare 1) the complications rate, 2) the revisions rate, 3) the survival rate after monobloc DMC compared to large femoral heads (LFH) in primary THA. Between 2010 and 2019, 2,075 primary THA using cementless DMC or LFH were included. Indications for DMC were patients older than 70 years old or with high risk of dislocation. Every other patient received a LFH. Exclusion criteria were cemented implants, femoral neck fracture, a follow-up of less than one year. 1,940 THA were analyzed: 1,149 DMC (59.2%), 791 LFH (40.8%). The mean age was 73 ±9.2 years old in DMC group and 57 ±12 in LFH group. The complications and the revisions have been assessed retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 41.9 months ±14 [12–134]. There were significantly fewer dislocations in DMC group (n=2; 0.17%) compared to LFH group (n=8; 1%) (p=0.019). The femoral head size had no impact on the dislocations rate in LFH group (p=0.70). The overall complication rate in DMC (n=59; 5.1%) and LFH (n=53; 6.7%) were not statistically different (p=0.21). No specific complication was attributed to the DMC. In DMC group, 18 THA (1.6%) were revised versus 15 THA in LFH group (1.9%) (p= 0.71). There was no statistical difference for any cause of revisions in both groups. The cup aseptic revision-free survival rates at 5 years were 98% in DMC group and 97.3% in LFH group (p=0.78). Monobloc DMC had a lower risk of dislocation in a high-risk population than LFH in a low-risk population at the mid-term follow-up. There was no significant risk of specific complications or revisions for DMC in a large cohort. Monobloc DMC can be safely used in a selected high-risk population

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

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

Introduction. Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with prior lumbar spine fusion (LSF) are at high risk for instability with reported incidence of dislocation as high as 8.3%. The use of dual mobility cups in patients undergoing revision THA, another high risk group, has demonstrated decreased incidence of instability. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of instability in patients undergoing primary THA with a history of prior LSF using dual mobility cups. Methods. This was a multi-center retrospective study with 93 patients undergoing primary THA using a dual mobility cup with prior history of instrumented LSF. The primary outcome investigated was instability. Secondary variables investigated included number of levels fused, approach, length of stay, and other complications. The minimum follow-up time was 1 year since the majority of dislocations occur during first year following the primary THA. Results. There were 56 females and 47 males with average age of 66 years (46–87) and average BMI of 30. Mean follow up was 31 months (range 12 – 124.2). Surgical approach included: posterior (63), direct lateral (15), anterior (11), direct superior (4). 44% had one level fusion, 29% with 2 levels, and 15% with 3 or more levels fused. There were no dislocations or infections in this study group. There was one intraoperative fracture and one DVT. Conclusions. Patients undergoing primary THA with prior LSF are a high risk group with an increased risk for instability due to the loss of normal spino-pelvic relationship. The use of dual mobility cups in a high risk group of patients in this study demonstrated excellent results with no incidence of dislocation. Despite the limitations in this study with varying approaches and multiple sites, the use of dual mobility cups to decrease the incidence of instability in patients with prior LSF appears promising. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Dislocation as a primary cause of revision has been on the increase in Sweden (14% in 2014). The increasing use of Dual Mobility cups (DMC) could well be explained by the increased revision burden due to dislocation, patients undergoing revision having increased comorbidities and reports that dual articular cup designs reduce the risk of dislocation. The aim of this study was to analyze the change in utilization pattern of the dual articular designs used in acetabular revision surgery in Sweden. The short-term survival of DMC was compared to traditional designs. Patients/Materials & Methods. During years 2004–2014, 1111 (925 cemented) revisions performed with a DMC design were reported to SHAR. About half (n=426) of these cases were first time revisions performed due to dislocation. During the same time period 520 dislocations were revised for dislocation using a standard cemented cup. There was no differences regarding the age, gender and primary diagnosis (p≥0.12) between the two groups. A second cup revision for all reasons and specifically for dislocation was used as end-point. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed. Results. Survival analysis at 5 years for all reasons (91.6% versus 87.9% p=0.002) and especially for reoperation because of instability (96.7 versus 90.9 p<0.0005) favors the DMC group. Discussion. We found a lower risk for a second revision when a dual mobility cup is used in revisions performed due to dislocation. Conclusion. Our findings indicate that use of a cemented DMC could be considered in first time revisions performed due to dislocation. Longer follow-up is needed to establish any long-term clinical advantages when dual mobility cups are used in revisions

Spasticity used to be considered a contraindication for total hip replacement (THR) procedures. Due to the development of implants as well as surgical skills, THR became an option for the treatment of painful dislocation of the hip joint in patients with spastic plegia. The aim of this study was an evaluation of mid-term results of THR in spastic CP adolescent patients with painful hips with hip joint subluxation or dislocation. In 2014–2022, 18 pts (19 hips) with CP aged 16 to 20 years underwent THR in our department. The mean follow-up was 4 years (range: 1 – 9 years). Results were evaluated using the Gross Motor Function Scale, VAS scale in accordance with the Ashworth scale, types of implants used (dual mobility cup and not dual mobility cup), and radiological assessment (Crowe scale). Complications have been thoroughly analyzed. In 10 pts there has been an improvement in the GMFSC scale average from 1 to 2 points observed after the surgery. All pts have improved in the VAS scale average of 8 points (from 10 to 7). According to the Crowe scale repositioning of preoperative dislocation to primary acetabulum was achieved in all cases. Complications occurred in 4 cases: dislocations of 2 THR with dual mobility cup and 2 THR with non-dual mobility cup requiring revision surgery with good final result. No statistical significance was noted according to the type of cup (Mann-Whitney U Test). The most important risk factor for complications is severe spasticity. We believe, that CP pts with painful hips should be treated using THR. We didn't observe any significant differences between the types of implants. These findings may serve as a basis for the prediction of outcomes of THR treatment in this specific group of pts. Level of evidence: Case-control or retrospective comparative study-Level III

Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in individuals treated for acute hip fracture is up to 10 times more frequent than in elective patients. Whilst approach plays a role, the effect of head sizes in conventional THA and dual mobility cups (DMC) is less studied in fracture cases. The total dislocation rate at 1-year and 3-year revision rates were recorded in this observational study on 8,031 patients with acute hip fracture, treated with a THA 2005–2014. Swedish Arthroplasty Register data were linked with the National Patient Register. Cox multivariable regression models were fitted to calculate adjusted hazard ratios stratified by approach and head size. The cumulative risk of dislocation during year 1 was 2.7% (95% CI 2.2–3.2) with lateral approach and 8.3% (7.3–9.3) with posterior approach (KM estimates). In the posterior approach group DMC was associated with a lower risk of dislocation compared to cTHA=32mm (HR=0.21; 0.07–0.68), whilst a head size <32mm carried a higher risk (HR=1.47; 1.10–1.98). These differences were no longer visible when revision in general was used as outcome. Neither of the implant designs influenced the dislocation risk when direct lateral approach was used. Male gender and severe comorbidity increased the risk. DMC with lateral approach was associated with a reduced risk of revision in general (HR=0.36; 0.13–0.99). Head size did not influence the revision risk. When aiming to reduce the risk of any dislocation, lateral approach – regardless of cup/head design – is referable. If, for any reason, posterior approach is used, DMC is associated with the lowest risk of dislocation. This is not reflected in analysing revision in general as outcome. An interpretation could be that there are different thresholds for dislocation prompting revision

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

Instability continues to be a troublesome complication after THA and has been reported to be the main indication for revision in the United States, accounting for 22.5% of revisions. Risk factors associated with dislocation include: age of 75 years or older, body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater, alcohol abuse, and neuro-degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease. Dual-mobility articulations have become an increasingly popular option for these “at risk” primary THAs. Few studies have assessed their use in this complex patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess dislocation rate, radiographic outcomes and complications of the dual-mobility articulation in the setting of primary THA for patients at high risk for dislocation at a minimum follow up of 2 years. We retrospectively reviewed 151 dual mobility acetabular components, that had been performed using a single design (ADM Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) between 2010 and 2014 at a single institution by a single surgeon. The mean age at time of index surgery was 82 years (range, 73–95), 114 patients were female, and mean BMI was 26.2 kg/m2 (range, 16.1–60.9). Dislocation rate and complications associated with dual mobility cups were reviewed, along with the radiographic outcomes after an average follow-up period of 3.6 years (range, 1.9–6.1 years). The indication for hip replacement was osteoarthritis in all cases. We had one traumatic dislocation which required component revision after intraprosthetic dislocation following an attempt of closed reduction. There were no further dislocations in this cohort. No progressive radiolucencies or component positional changes were seen on radiographic assessment. At short-term follow-up dual mobility provides a stable reconstruction in patients at high risk of dislocation with excellent radiographic results. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of these reconstructions

Aims

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions.

Dual mobility (DM) cups are designed to improve stability, however have been associated with increased risk of impingement that can ultimately result in intraprosthetic dislocation. It is speculated that the femoral neck plays a role in their performance. We investigated the effect of neck topography on the wear of new-generation liners. This was a retrieval study involving 70 DM cups implanted with liners made of highly crosslinked polyethylene and paired with two neck types: either highly polished (n=35) or rough necks (n=35). The median time of implantation was 30 months. The rim edge of all inserts was investigated by two examiners for evidence of contact with the femoral neck, presenting as deformation of the polyethylene. A high precision roundness machine and micro-CT scans of the components were used to measure the size of the deformations observed. 28 of the 35 (80%) DM liners paired with rougher necks had evidence of neck impingement resulting in a raised lip, whilst 8 out of 35 (23%) liners paired with smooth necks had a raised lip; this difference was significant (p<0.0001). The repeatability and the inter-observer reproducibility of the deformation scores was found to be substantial κ >0.70. The height of the raised rims of the DM cups paired with rough necks had a median (range) of 139 µm (72–255), whilst had a median (range) of 52 µm (45–90) with smooth necks, the difference between the groups was significant (p<0.0001). Liner rim deformation resulting from contact with the femoral neck likely begins during early in-vivo function. Rough necks can increase the damage on the polyethylene rim in dual-mobility bearing, which may lead to loss of the retentive power of these components over time

We evaluated the accuracy with which a custom-made acetabular component could be positioned at revision arthroplasty of the hip in patients with a Paprosky type 3 acetabular defect.

A total of 16 patients with a Paprosky type 3 defect underwent revision surgery using a custom-made trabecular titanium implant. There were four men and 12 women with a median age of 67 years (48 to 79). The planned inclination (INCL), anteversion (AV), rotation and centre of rotation (COR) of the implant were compared with the post-operative position using CT scans.

A total of seven implants were malpositioned in one or more parameters: one with respect to INCL, three with respect to AV, four with respect to rotation and five with respect to the COR.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which CT data acquired for the pre-operative planning of a custom-made revision acetabular implant have been compared with CT data on the post-operative position. The results are encouraging.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:780–5.