Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Dec 18;106(24):2313-2321.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.24.00168. Epub 2024 Oct 17.

Dual-Mobility Articulations in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison with Metal or Ceramic on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene and Constrained Articulations

Monti Khatod  1 , Priscilla H Chan  2 , Heather A Prentice  2 , Brian H Fasig  2 , Elizabeth W Paxton  2 , Nithin C Reddy  3 , Matthew P Kelly  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Dual-Mobility Articulations in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison with Metal or Ceramic on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene and Constrained Articulations

Monti Khatod et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: The increased availability of dual-mobility acetabular constructs (DMCs) provides surgeons with a newer option to increase the effective femoral head size in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). We sought to evaluate risks of re-revision and prosthetic dislocation following rTHA involving a DMC compared with other articulations.

Methods: A cohort study was conducted using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's Total Joint Replacement Registry. Adult patients who underwent primary THA and went on to undergo an aseptic rTHA in 2002 to 2022 were identified. Patients who received a DMC, a constrained liner, or a metal or ceramic unipolar femoral head on highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) at the time of rTHA were the treatment groups. Subsequent aseptic re-revision and dislocation were the outcomes of interest. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risks of the outcomes, with adjustment for patient, operative, and surgeon confounders.

Results: The analyzed rTHAs comprised 375 with a DMC, 268 with a constrained liner, 995 with a <36-mm head on XLPE, and 2,087 with a ≥36-mm head on XLPE. DMC utilization increased from 1.0% of rTHAs in 2011 to 21.6% in 2022. In adjusted analyses, a higher re-revision risk was observed for the constrained liner (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 4.59), <36 mm on XLPE (HR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.13 to 3.75), and ≥36 mm on XLPE (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.48) groups compared with the DMC group. A higher dislocation risk was observed in both XLPE groups (<36 mm: HR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.33 to 3.14; ≥36 mm: HR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.69 to 3.57) compared with the DMC group; a nonsignificant trend toward a higher dislocation rate in the group with a constrained liner than in the DMC group was also observed.

Conclusions: In a large U.S.-based cohort, rTHAs using DMCs had the lowest re-revision risk and dislocation risk. Both outcomes were significantly lower than those using a unipolar femoral head on XLPE, re-revision risk was significantly lower than using a constrained liner, and dislocation risk trended toward a lower risk than using a constrained liner.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: No external funding was received for this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I250 ).

References

    1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5.
    1. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):128-33.
    1. Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr. Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S79-85.
    1. Khatod M, Cafri G, Inacio MC, Schepps AL, Paxton EW, Bini SA. Revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Mar 4;97(5):359-66.
    1. Hermansen LL, Viberg B, Overgaard S. Risk Factors for Dislocation and Re-revision After First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty due to Recurrent Dislocation - A Study From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2021 Apr;36(4):1407-12.

Publication types