Dual-Mobility Articulations in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison with Metal or Ceramic on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene and Constrained Articulations
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
Published on: May 14, 2020
Monti Khatod1, Priscilla H Chan2, Heather A Prentice2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, West Los Angeles, California.
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.
