Dual Mobility Versus Fixed Bearing Implants in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Under 55 Years of Age

Prosthetic dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common causes of revision THA. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings were introduced to mitigate complications; however, there is minimal data on their performance in younger patients. This study compared results of patients who were under 55 years of age undergoing primary THA with DM or fixed-bearing (FB) implants.

A retrospective review of patients younger than 55 years who underwent primary THA with at least 2 years of follow-up between June 2011 and August 2019 was performed. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the implant they received (DM vs. FB). Primary outcomes were 90-day all-cause readmission, dislocation, all-cause revision, 90-day readmission and revision due to dislocation, and implant component survivorship. Demographic differences were assessed using chi-squared and independent samples t-tests. Outcomes were compared using multivariate linear and logistic regressions to control for confounding variables.

A total of 803 patients were included (DM = 73, FB = 730). The DM and FB cohorts had similar rates of 90- day all-cause readmission (6.8% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.243) and 90-day readmission due to dislocation (4.1% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.653). At a mean follow-up of 4.42 ± 1.91 years, dislocation (4.1% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.723) and all-cause revision (5.5% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.497) rates between the DM and FB cohorts were similar. Kaplan Meier analysis yielded no significant differences in survivorship between groups for all-cause revision (95.1% vs. 94.5%; p = 0.923), revision due to dislocation (100% vs. 98.9%; p = 0.370), and acetabular component revision (97.3% vs. 98.6%; p = 0.418).

Dual mobility implants demonstrate similar dislocation rates and implant survivorship compared to FB in patients less than 55 years of age. Larger trials with long-term follow-up may be required to further elucidate the effects of DM bearings compared to FB inserts in younger patients undergoing primary THA.