Dual-Mobility versus Fixed-Bearing Constructs in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes.
Joshua P Rainey, Logan E Radtke, Jeremy M Gililland et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review compared dislocation outcomes for dual-mobility (DM) and fixed-bearing (FB) constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty. It included 22 studies; all were level III evidence except one level II study. Twenty-one studies reported more favorable dislocation rates with DM, and 15 found a statistically significant difference. Across those 15 studies, dislocation rates were 4.4% with DM versus 6.9% with FB. The review concluded that DM use is associated with lower dislocation risk in revision THA.
Key findings
- Twenty-one of 22 studies reported favorable dislocation rates for DM compared with FB constructs.
- Fifteen studies found a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
- Across those 15 studies, dislocation rates were 4.4% for DM versus 6.9% for FB.
Why it matters
Instability is a concern in revision hip arthroplasty, and the reviewed comparative literature generally favored DM constructs for dislocation outcomes. The findings provide a useful summary of the available evidence, while the predominance of level III studies means the association should be interpreted in light of the evidence base rather than as definitive proof of comparative benefit.
What to keep in mind
The evidence was predominantly level III, and the mean modified Coleman Methodology score was 55.1 (range, 45 to 79).