Dual-Mobility Constructs in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of dual-mobility constructs in total hip arthroplasties (THA) has increased in the recent years. Benefits and risks of these implants in terms of reducing dislocations, long-term survivorship, and associated complications are uncertain when compared to non-dual-mobility articulations. METHODS: A systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies that compared dual-mobility constructs with controls for primary or revision THAs between 1986 and 2018 was performed. All articles in both English and French were reviewed. RESULTS: Five studies with primary THAs and 6 with revision THAs were analyzed. For primary THAs, the overall rate of dislocation was 0.9% in the dual-mobility group compared to 6.8% in the control group (P < .001) at a mean follow-up of 7.6 years. The odds ratios for the control group to the dual-mobility group were 4.06 (P < .001) for dislocation, 1.18 (P = .87) for revision, 2.97 (P = .04) for revision due to dislocation, 1.67 (P = .57) for infection, 0.6 (P = .53) for fracture, and 1.21 (P = .81) for aseptic loosening. Similarly, for revision THAs, the overall dislocation rates were 2.2% compared to 7.1% (P < .001) at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. The odds ratios for the control group to the dual-mobility group were 3.59 (P < .001) for dislocation, 2.46 (P < .001) for re-revision, 4.88 (P = .007) for re-revision due to dislocation, 1.51 (P = .32) for infection, 1.18 (P = .81) for fracture, and 2.71 (P = .003) for aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of comparative studies supports the efficacy of dual-mobility constructs to minimize dislocation after both primary and revision THAs in addition to excellent mid-term survivorship compared to control constructs. However, further evidence is needed to evaluate the long-term risks and benefits of dual-mobility constructs in the primary and revision THA setting when compared to contemporary conventional implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, therapeutic.
