Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 10, 2026
Potentiodynamic Corrosion Testing
Published on: September 4, 2016
Is there a rationale to use a dual mobility poly insert for failed Birmingham metal-on-metal hip replacements? A
Lisa Renner1, Martin Faschingbauer, Friedrich Boettner
1Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA, rennerl@hss.edu.
Introduction:
Previous studies showed poor outcomes for patients undergoing revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM-THA) and resurfacing (RS) with an increased risk of dislocation. Dual mobility inserts are an option to retain the acetabular component and change the metal-on-metal bearing to plastic-on-metal. The current study analyzes the rationale for the off-label use of a dual mobility poly insert (MDM X3, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) in a Birmingham metal shell (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN).
Materials And Methods:
Based on retrievals from the implant database the study compared the clearance between 20 BHR shells, 31 MDM poly inserts and 24 ADM acetabular components of different sizes. The radial clearance was calculated for each possible combination of implants [n = 81 (MDM/BHR) and n = 119 (MDM/ADM)].
Results:
An MDM mobile bearing poly insert in an ADM shell has an average clearance of 0.314 mm (SD 0.031) compared to 0.234 mm (SD 0.030) in a BHR shell (p < 0.01). The minimal clearance is 0.246 and 0.163 mm, respectively. 30.9 % of the MDM/BHR clearances were within the range of the MDM/ADM bearing and 88.9 % had a clearance of more than 0.2 mm.
Conclusion:
Clearances of the MDM poly insert in a BHR shell are reduced, and although the majority of combinations appear safe, the indication needs to be made on an individual base carefully considering alternative treatment options.
