Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026
Evaluating Postural Control and Lower-extremity Muscle Activation in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability
Published on: September 18, 2020
Indications for Use of Dual Mobility Demonstrate Significant Differences in Subsequent Instability
Kelechi Nwachuku1, Angel Xiao1, Abbott Gifford2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Background:
Dual mobility (DM) constructs are widely used to mitigate instability following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the effectiveness of DM constructs may vary substantially depending on the surgical indication. This study aimed to quantify the rates of subsequent dislocation in DM constructs across various primary and revision surgical indications.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 488 consecutive THAs utilizing DM implants. Patients were stratified into three utilization groups: primary THA (n = 193), conversion THA (n = 55), and revision THA (n = 240). Revision THAs were further categorized by indication, including instability, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and adverse reaction to metallic debris (ARMD). The primary outcome was postoperative dislocation. The influence of indication, surgical approach, patient demographics, anatomical factors, and comorbidity scores on dislocation risk was assessed using multivariable analysis.
Results:
With a mean follow-up of 36.1 months (zero to 148), the overall rate of post-operative dislocation was 4.7% (23 of 488). Dislocation rates differed across the main indications: 3.1% (six of 193) for primary THA, 0% (zero of 55) for conversion THA, and 7.1% (17 of 240) for revision THA (P = 0.05). Analyzing the revision cohort (n = 240) separately, the failure rate by etiology was 5.8% (four of 69) for periprosthetic joint infection, 6.5% (four of 62) for aseptic loosening, 5.7% (three of 53) for instability, 0% (zero of 15) for periprosthetic fracture, and 25% (six of 24) for ARMD. Within the revision cohort, revision for ARMD was strongly associated with failure on multivariable analysis (P < 0.001).
Conclusions:
The ability of DM constructs to mitigate instability varies substantially by indication. Revision THA for ARMD carries a disproportionately high risk of subsequent dislocation even with DM constructs, warranting patient counseling and more aggressive surgical strategies for obtaining stability in these high-risk groups.
