Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Dislocation post THA confers a higher risk of re-dislocation (Kotwal et al, 2009). The dual mobility (DM) cup design (1974) was aimed at improving the stability by increasing the femoral head to neck ratio (Cuthbert et al., 2019) combining the ideas of low friction arthroplasty with increased jump distance associated with a big head arthroplasty.
Aims
Understand the dislocation rates, rates of aseptic loosening, infection rate and revision rates between the 2 types of constructs to provide current and up-to date evidence.
Methods
Medline, pubmed, embase and Cochrane databases were used based on PRISMA guidelines. RevMan software was used for the meta-analysis. Studies (English literature) which used DM construct with atleast 6 months follow-up used as intervention and non DM construct as control were included. 2 independent reviewers conducted the review with a third reviewer in case of difference in opinion regarding eligibility. Primary outcome was dislocation rate and secondary outcome was rate of revision.
Results
564 articles identified out of which 44 articles were screened for full texts and eventually 4 systematic review articles found eligible for the study. Thus, study became a review of systematic reviews. From the 4 systematic reviews, another 35 studies were identified for data extraction and 13 papers were used for meta-analysis. Systematic reviews evaluated, projected an average follow up of 6–8 years with significantly lower dislocation rates for DM cups. The total number of patients undergoing DM cup primary THA were 30,559 with an average age 71 years while the control group consisted of 218,834 patients with an average age of 69 years. DM group had lower rate of dislocation (p < 0.00001), total lower rate of cup revision (p < 0.00001, higher incidence of fracture (p>0.05).
Conclusion
DM THA is a viable alternative for conventional THA. The long-term results of DM cups in primary THA need to be further evaluated using high quality prospective studies and RCTs.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
