Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study

Dual mobility (DM) has been used in primary total hip arthroplasty recently for their low dislocation rates, low revision rates, and improved patient functional outcomes. We compared 2 DM systems, anatomic dual mobility (ADM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) and modular dual mobility (MDM; Stryker, Mahwah, NJ), to determine differences in dislocation rates, revision rates, and patient outcome scores.

The study was a single-center matched retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty surgery with an ADM or MDM system by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2017. Demographics, operative details, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve to compare survival time between groups was collected as well.

Five hundred seventy-four patients were included in the study with 287 patients matched in each group with mean 2.86 years of follow-up. The dislocation rate in each cohort was 0%, the acetabular-specific revision rate was 0%, and in each cohort, overall revision rate in each cohort was 1.7%. In general, patient-reported outcomes were similar for each group (Harris Hip Score Pain (P = .919), Harris Hip Score Function (P = .736), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (P = .139), Pain Visual Analog Scale (P = .146), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (P = .99), University of California, Los Angeles (P = .417), and Harris Hip Score Total (P = .136). There was a slight clinically insignificant increase in hip flexion between the cohorts favoring the ADM group (98.6 ± 9.8 vs 94.0 ± 9.7, P < .001).

Both DM systems had similar patient-reported outcomes that were quite favorable. At 2.86 years of follow-up, neither the ADM nor MDM systems demonstrated dislocation, and both had low acetabular-specific and overall revision rates in this matched cohort study.