Abstract
Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasties in the United States. We have advocated identifying the primary cause of instability to plan appropriate treatment (Wera, Della Valle, et al., JOA 2012). Once implant position, leg length, and offset have been optimised and sources of impingement have been removed, the surgeon can opt for a large femoral head, a dual mobility articulation or a constrained liner. Given the limitations of constrained liners, we have looked to dual mobility articulations as an alternative, including its use in patients with abductor deficiency.
We retrospectively compared a consecutive series of revision THA that were at high risk for instability and treated with either a constrained liner or a dual mobility articulation. At a minimum of two years, there were ten dislocations in the constrained group (10/43 or 23.3%) compared to three in the dual-mobility group (3/36 or 8.3%; p = 0.06). With repeat revision for instability as an endpoint, the failure rate was 23% for the constrained group and 5.5% for the dual mobility group (p = 0.03).
We have also performed a systematic review of the published literature on the use of dual mobility in revision THA. Of the 3,088 hips reviewed, the dislocation rate was 2.2%, the risk of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% and overall survivorship was 96.6% at 5 years.
Dual mobility articulations offer anatomic sized femoral heads that greatly increase jump distance, without many of the negatives of a constrained liner. While dual mobility is associated with its own concerns and problems (including intraprosthetic dislocation and wear) our initial results suggest that they are a viable alternative to a constrained liner, even in the most challenging situations.
