Computerized range of motion analysis following dual mobility total hip arthroplasty, traditional total hip arthroplasty, and hip resurfacing.

Overview

Newer arthroplasty designs claim to provide superior range of motion (ROM) and greater stability than their predecessors. However, there is no way to compare ROM of implant systems in an equivalent anatomical environment in a clinical setting. This study used computer-aided design to compare ROM after hip resurfacing, 28 mm THA, 36 mm THA, and anatomic dual mobility (ADM) THA in 3D models of 5 cadaver pelvises. ROM to impingement was then tested in 10 different motions and a one-way ANOVA was used to compare results. The hip resurfacing resulted in restricted ROM compared to the other 3 models in all motions except adduction. The ADM, 36 mm, and 28 mm THA resulted in similar ROM. Dual mobility constructs provide comparable ROM in patients where large head THA is not appropriate.